Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Richmond, Yorks By-Election

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is my duty this morning to move the writ for Richmond, York—

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I have sent you a copy of a newspaper article that is relevant to the matter. I believe that it is both a breach of the privilege of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is a breach of privilege, the hon. Gentleman must write to me in the usual way. I have said that to him. The matter cannot be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Skinner: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have made a pretty reasonable start. It almost seems that someone on the other side of the House is behaving like me. But I am certain that the matter is very important.
I beg to move,
That Mr. Speaker, do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County constituency of Richmond, Yorkshire, in the room of the right hon. Leon Brittan, QC, who since his election for the said county constituency hath accepted the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
Well, I have heard the Common Market called a lot of things in my time, but "Manor of Northstead" is completely new to me. It might fool people in the Common Market, but I do not think that many hon. Members on either side of the House will buy that one.
The writ is in many ways a very complicated business, and I want to use a few opportunities today to illustrate the way in which these things must be done. I have spent many years in this place watching successive Chief Whips move writs and thinking, "This is a part of life that I have missed out on. I do not really know what the game is all about.
When I started to delve into the moving of writs, I suddenly discovered that there was a side to parliamentary life on which we were missing out. Chief Whips, as we know, are men and women of few words. They stand at the Dispatch Box and move the writ ever so quickly, generally just before Question Time, and before we know what has happened it is on the way. Yet when a Back-Bench Member moves a writ, he has to explain it. One cannot get away with just standing up, because there has not been a discusision through the usual channels. Therefore, one must try to convince one's right hon. Friends and Government Members. In order to get a writ carried, one must convince a majority. One cannot rig it beforehand.
It is a matter difficult to discuss. I read "Erskine May", which is a complicated tome, but I use it a lot. It can be

very handy on occasions. It is like reading the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. When I worked in the pits, I read that Act thoroughly to outwit the management. When I became a Member, I thought that, after 21 years, that was the end of it—but then I discovered that I would need a new way of weaving and dodging, and I came across "Erskine May". The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and Erskine May are about the same.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Given the proposal in the Government's Employment Bill, does my hon. Friend recommend that the women of the nation read the Mines and Quarries Act 1954? Is it a riveting read?

Mr. Skinner: I say to the Speaker, who is leaning forward a little at this point, that I acknowledge that the point raised by my hon. Friend is, without a doubt, not one for today's business. However, I may have to organise seminars—which I believe is the yuppie word for them—telling women, who may or may not go down the pits if the Employment Bill is passed, how to deal with the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. I say en passant—[Laughter] .1 I have used that expression before, and it always goes well —it is like one of Les Dawson's.
Once one gets to know the rules and procedures in any walk of life, that knowledge can be very handy. Some of us are very thorough about doing so. To get a writ through from the Back Benches, as opposed to moving it from the Dispatch Box, the first point one discovers is that it is the first item of business and should precede everything else. if a writ is to be moved on a day when there are parliamentary questions, that must be done at the beginning of business. If it is objected to, then it can he dealt with after Question Time. It can take up a considerable amount of time. It is no bad thing for the House to discuss a writ. It may be that in future years, given that Back Benchers as well as Whips can move a writ, that device will be used extensively.
There are about 28 references in "Erskine May" to moving a writ, so if anyone has any ideas for the future, I suggest that they start at page 26 and work their way through to page 327. I should not want to bore the House by reading every page of "Erskine May" relating to writs—unless I am pressed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am worried by the line that my hon. Friend takes. I am riot sure that "Erskine May" deals with the weather. However, am sure that my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to study the constituency's boundaries, and realises that much of it goes into the high Pennines area. In the next three to four weeks, the weather there may not be particularly good. Has my hon. Friend taken that into account?

Mr. Skinner: I have. I shall deal with the constituency's contours and geography, because, when right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House go electioneering in the constituency after the writ has been agreed, it is important that they know where they are. They could easily become lost.

Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Gentleman should correct the geography of his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), in referring to the north Yorkshire moors as the Pennines. That is an insult to every Yorkshireman.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Gentleman the geographer royal on the Conservative Benches that a substantial part of the constituency's geographical area includes the Yorkshire Pennine dales of Wensleydale and Swaledale?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is hardly relevant as to whether or not there should be a by-election.

Hon. Members: It certainly is.

Mr. Skinner: To be fair, the Speaker is trying to say that it is wrong to talk at unnecessary length about the constituency, even though such tactics have been used in the past, when writs have been moved from the Back Benches. The Speaker is saying that it is wrong to refer to every little village and hamlet. However, the constituency of Richmond has many important characteristics, and I shall refer to them later.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree with me, as a Member representing a Pennines constituency, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) may cause offence? What on earth is wrong about living in the Pennines?

Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I am just off the edge of the Pennines.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member is off the edge of most things.

Mr. Skinner: I heard the remark of the ex-leader of the Liberal Party, if that is what it is called these days, about being off the edge. We do not want to go into that, either.

Mr. Martin Flannery: A large part of the Hillsborough constituency is in the Pennines. Returning to an earlier point, does my hon. Friend advocate that, after the women of our country have all read the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, that they should then read "Erskine May"? Most right hon. and hon. Members are not used to moving a writ, but occasionally they receive one. Does "Erskine May" say anything about that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be a different kind of writ. We must return to the question of the Richmond writ.

Mr. Skinner: The problem can be easily resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who started this discussion, is well known for climbing the hills and mountains of the Pennines, and of Richmond. I suggest that he goes climbing in the constituency, and takes "Erskine May" with him. He, too, is well versed in that tome. I will also give him a copy of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. He can then hold a seminar on Scargill high moor, overlooking the constituency. All those elements combined together will produce a reasonable solution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) knows, all those who take that exercise will feel better when they have finished. They can then descend the Pennines, call in at his place in Sheffield, and then go up the lovely little Ribble valley that my hon. Friend uses on occasions, when he takes those glorious walks of his.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend return to my serious point concerning the weather? I remind him that at the top of Swaledale is Tan hill, and that in 1947, the pub there had no visitors for three months because of the weather. Is it fair to move the writ at a time when there may be a month or more of snow, posing considerable difficulty to people wanting to vote? My hon. Friend ought to take the weather into account—unless he had the foresight to find out what weather we are to have over the next three or four weeks.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and it is one we must discuss. We must debate whether now is the appropriate time for the by-election. We all recognise that it is not a good idea to be electioneering in bad weather. General elections have been held in February.
I am not suggesting for one moment that this by-election writ should be accepted on the old register. I want it to take place on the new register, which is important because it will give the greatest possible opportunity to the largest number of people within the enfranchisement of the Richmond constituency.
We must balance the two issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has doubts and I must convince him of my argument. We must bear in mind the weather, plus the greatest number of people registered. One has to strike balances in life—I sometimes find that difficult. That is the nature of this place, especially when one is trying to have a writ carried.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish should not just get caught up with the weather. All hon. Members know that he understands the weather, clouds and changes in climate because he has lived that kind of life. We are talking about the new register and giving more people a chance to vote. That is one reason why I have come along with the writ today. We are approaching the time when the new register will be in force.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. In 1905–06 a radical Government were elected during the Christmas period and, in February 1974, the Labour party did not do too badly when there was a snowstorm in some constituencies. However, would my hon. Friend really like to be electioneering on the high moors in the weather that we can expect in the next few weeks?

Mr. Skinner: They are already doing it. It is not yet the proper election period, but we know that the main parties have selected their candidates. Our candidate, Frank Robson, who increased his vote by 35 per cent. between the 1983 and the 1987 elections, is already hard at it in the villages and hamlets.
I do not want to overlay this debate with too many plugs, but my colleague up there is fighting a doughty battle. he will certainly not be put off by the weather, Tories, Liberals or the party that dare not speak its name. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish should be up there—I think he will be—because if there is bad weather and the question of getting back to base arises, who better to bring the lost sheep down the mountains—or whatever other analogy is suitable?

Mr. David Tredinnick: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is giving a plug for his party's candidate in the Richmond by-election. It is only fair in the interests equity, that I should refer to the superb


prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate, whom I happen to know personally. He was the president of the Oxford Union when I was there. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is his name?") His name is William Hague.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an intervention. Please get it over with.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to Opposition Members for falling into my little trap. I have William Hague's curriculum vitae with me. I was perusing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it.") I have been told to read it, but you Mr. Speaker, have pointed out that this is an intervention. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has tried to pre-empt some of the actions that should take place in the forthcoming by-election in Richmond if the writ is successful. It would be grossly unjust if I did not put one or two of the finer points about William Hague.

Mr. Speaker: That is something which the hon. Gentleman can do if he is called to speak later in the debate but not in an intervention.

Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) were to speak—you will decide that, Mr. Speaker and not me—it would be a good idea. It would not be the most helpful contribution for the Tory candidate if the hon. Gentleman went on at length. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker and can explain more fully the name and background of the candidate, which, initially, he did not seem to know.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can I make an unhelpful contribution? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong to move the writ. I am puzzled by his lack of curiosity. On 27 January 1986, and often before and since, he has asked the important question that should be resolved before he moves any writ. He asked why there should be an inquiry into the gross abuse of a Law Officers' letter by the former hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). The Prime Minister replied
I did not know about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's own role in the matter of the disclosure until the inquiry had reported."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not relevant. We must return to the writ.

Mr. Dalyell: Under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, before such a writ is moved, there should be a tribunal into the happenings of January 1986. I am surprised that my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman could not advance his argument if he were called to speak, but it is not relevant at the moment.

Mr. Skinner: As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) knows, although I am not carrying him with me today, I quite favour the tribunal idea. Moving the writ will not make a great deal of difference to that. I shall support my hon. Friend on the issue of the tribunal in the future, irrespective of what happens regarding the writ.
Today we are here to carry through, if possible, this particular writ. As a Back Bencher, I have to convince a majority. If I cannot convince my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow on the advisability of it, it looks as if

matters are getting a bit dodgy and I shall have to try harder. A Front Bencher, could move the writ at 2.30 pm and that would be fairly easy but I must convince people. Today, I am striking a blow for Back Benchers, many of whom have asked many times, "Why cannot we have the right of Privy Councillors and the Front Benchers?"
I am demonstrating that, in this matter, a Back Bencher should have the rights and powers that are normally preserved for Front Benchers only. It may be difficult to convince Front Benchers of that. I think that, on balance, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow would agree, taking into account the tribunal and everything else, it would be better to strike a blow for the Back Bencher's right to move into that territory of moving writs that is normally reserved for the Chief Whip of the respective parties. That would be a worthwhile achievement, over and above the tribunal argument. It would represent a blow for democracy. I am wooing my hon. Friend back to me; I thought he was with me at the beginning.

Mr. Flannery: I just want to thank my hon. Friend, because by his deep reading of "Erskine May", he has revealed that there are things in it which we wotted not of. We have not a lot of privileges on the Back Benches but I now gather that we have privileges that we did not know about. My hon. Friend will remember that I said to him this morning that I did not know that a Back Bencher could move a writ. We have a tendency to convey to people that we Back Benchers know everything, but it is obvious that we do not. My hon. Friend has taught me that I can move a writ. I should like to try sometime, so I shall study the procedure.

Mr. Skinner: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because I have the appropriate page from "Erskine May". Page 326, under the item (3), "Motion for New Writs", states:
The next item to be taken after any such communication"—
that is any communication from the Palace—
is any motion for an order of the House to the Speaker to make out his warrant for the issue of a writ for the election of a new Member to fill a vacancy arising in the course of a session.
That means that the moving of a writ must be the first item of business after any communication from the Palace. It must take precedence.
The next part is important and is what my hon. Friend will probably remember if he wants to move a writ in future. It states:
Such motions are moved normally, but not necessarily, by the Chief Whip of the party to which the Member vacating the seat belonged.
That is the very essence of it. "Erskine May" is saying to Back Benches, "You have the right". We have not chosen to develop that right, except on rare occasions, because a lot of people on coming into the House tend to take things for granted. I hope that my hon. Friend has the point. It is in "Erskine May"—Chief Whips generally, but not necessarily.

Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend has taught us a great deal. I have a lot to do with teachers and education, and we always talk about in-service training, which is expensive. Does my hon. Friend believe that Members of Parliament need a good deal of in-service training?

Mr. Skinner: One of the main reasons for doing what I am doing today—referring constantly to "Erskine May"


—is that one of my burning desires since coming to this House has been for all Back Benchers to understand the quaint and archaic procedures of this place, so that they can have power, most times over the Government, and sometimes over their own parties. I say that with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) present. He is helpful in this regard and he will understand the point I am making. I want us to be in the position to challenge even our own party establishment when it is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough has struck the very kernel of the argument that motivates me to do what I am doing.
If my hon. Friend still has connections with the National Union of Teachers, and, if he believes it is necessary for me or others like me to explain the antediluvian procedures of the House to some of the kids in the Sheffield area—I am making a rod for my own back here; I had better be careful—obviously I shall be helpful in that regard. Together, we could be a sort of dual repertory company which explains these procedures.

Mr. Flannery: If my hon. Friend does explain these procedures to teachers and people connected with education, does he believe that it would be relevant—when the question of the absence from schools of young people and children is raised—to explain to them the degree of absenteeism that goes on in this House? Those absent are often the Members who raise the question of absenteeism in our schools.

Mr. Skinner: Absenteeism is not really germane, but it is important to understand that on this Friday morning there is a good turn-out. It would not have been a bad idea if the televising of the House had begun this morning. It would not have been a bad start, would it?

Mr. Flannery: Attendance would have been better, would it not?

Mr. Skinner: We would not have needed too many seminars about parliamentary procedure. We could have had the entire nation saying tomorrow, "Do you know how to move a writ?" It could have been number one in the tabloids. We could have broken new ground, because we would have been educating the great British public about the procedures of this House. My guess is that, when the House is televised, only some of the normal run-of-the-mill, so-called major debates in which Privy Councillors tend to participate will be shown, whereas this is really a Back-Bench day. It therefore has great possibilities. I am letting my mind wander now as to when I shall be moving my next writ, so that we shall be able to inform those millions of people who will be tuned into the parliamentary channel—that is what they claim. At least there might be more tuned into that channel than the Sky channel.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I realise that my hon. Friend has been drawn away from one or two things, but he still has not answered my earlier question about the weather in Richmond. I just wonder whether he has any information about the weather. Even if we wait for the new register, would we have weather suitable for a by-election? As well as its importance to the by-election, many other people would like to know what the weather will be like during the next two to three weeks.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been in this place for some time and I have discovered that he is diligent, but, by God, he takes some persuading. I am doing my best with this writ, but he is asking me to control the weather. I am stopping people from queue-jumping with motions and things—I am not allowed to talk about that—but does my hon. Friend really believe that I am the sort of John Kettley of Parliament? He could not get it right. What guarantee is there that in June or July the skies will not open up? If there was an election in June in Richmond how do we know that people would not be tramping through the streets in pouring summer rain? We do not know what the weather will be. There are some things in life that even I cannot control.
I say to my hon. Friend that I want his vote, but I cannot control the weather. Not even the Prime Minister has laid claim to being able to do that. She is into the green things. I cannot visualise her in that green anorak and sandals or the wooly hat from the jumble sale. I suggest that my hon. Friend should ask the Prime Minister if she has got round to controlling the weather.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: My hon. Friend in replying to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said in his characteristic fashion how important it was to balance these matters. The balancing factor which we introduced was the aim to get the maximum number of people to vote, which would mean waiting for the new registers. If the writ was moved today—working to the maximum 18 days from the moving of the writ—does not the time run out on Monday, 15 February? The election would have to be on that day, at the latest. The new registers would be available at 9 o'clock that morning, but the voting booths would be open at 7 o'clock that morning. Therefore, the new register would not be available.

Mr. Skinner: There is some flexibility. Often the election day does not correspond with the formal date, in terms of the number of weeks, from when the writ was moved, notwithstanding holidays and all the rest of it. I do not believe there is a problem, but if there is, I am sure that the Government—the seat represents a vacancy in their party—will ensure that the election takes place after 15 February.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend should enlarge on the question of the date, but not quite yet. My hon. Friend has pointed out that he needs the support of the majority of the House. I understand his natural and habitual desire to lash out at Conservative Members, but I must remind him that he will need votes from the Conservative Benches as well. I appeal to my hon. Friend to be a little more reasonable in his attitude. He is conducting this matter as though only one side of the House should be consulted, and I believe that he is treating Conservative Members quite scurvily.
It is rare for me to intervene to defend the Conservative Benches, but several Conservative Members have tried to intervene on my hon. Friend's speech, only to be brushed aside. I appeal to my hon. Friend to look across at the Conservative Benches sometimes today. Let us have a bit of fair play; otherwise we will not get the votes.

Mr. Skinner: Well, "you can't win them all."—that is roughly what my hon. Friend means. I have got to come here on a Friday morning and act out a role that does not


suit me. I gave way to two Tories, but, with all due deference—I think that that is the way I should say it—the last one I gave way to cocked it up. I gave him a chance, but he got muddled. I decided that if that was the case, why should I repeat the mistake? I decided that I should rely on the old-fashioned idea of letting my hon. Friends have a go. But, okay, if my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) wants me to try to inculcate Conservative Members into my web, I shall.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been somewhat deflected from his theme about the barometer of the weather. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that by-elections are generally seen as a barometer of public opinion. The hon. Gentleman's primary function today is to secure the replacement of a Member of Parliament. The replacement of Members is not a trivial matter; there have been an average of 53 by-elections in each Parliament since 1918. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the replacement of a Member and not the weather is the most important thing? What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Skinner: It is clear that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has not only been reading "Erskine May", but has obviously been looking at the records. It is possible that there could be a contribution from the Conservative Benches on this matter if the hon. Lady catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. That would give a Conservative Member the opportunity to explain, maybe at length, what happened in those past by-elections; who moved the writs; whether they were all moved from the relevant Front Bench; and whether there were any exceptions to the rule. It is possible that we could look forward to a good, wholesome contribution about this. I am pleased to note that the hon. Lady supports the idea of a writ.

Mr. David Martin: The hon. Gentleman has talked about absenteeism and about the new register. One must take into consideration the postal vote. Is he satisfied that, if there is a new register in the time available, people will know who the new Tory candidate is? There might be the slogan: "Don't be vague, ask for Hague". That could help the electorate. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied about the arrangements that will he made for postal votes in the event of a new register?

Mr. Skinner: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman follows electoral law as closely as some of us, but important changes have occurred in the past decade, not only to postal votes, but to people's ability to register, almost immediately, at any given time during the year.
When I acted as a local government agent, one of the things that disturbed me most was that people could not get on the electoral register except at one time in the year. People can now get on those registers within a month, at any time of the year. From time to time, parties of all descriptions have increased the number of people on the registers during a given year.
Postal votes are important, because the demographic make-up of the Richmond, Yorks constituency is not much different from the rest of Britain. There are a considerable number of elderly people in that constituency. We all know that, despite the attacks on the National Health Service, advances in medical science have

meant that people are living longer and longer into their 70s and 80s. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) is correct: postal votes are important. They will be oft continued importance throughout the forthcoming decades, as the population gradually ages. We must pay attention to the avalability of postal votes in Richmond, Yorks.

Mr. Dalyell: Rather than discussing Sir Leon Brittan again, I want to comment on the weather.
Does my hon. Friend know that those of us who did their national service in the cavalry, did our basic training at Catterick camp? Can my hon. Friend imagine what it was like for me, along with other 18-year-olds, trying to dig out a trapped vehicle in the snow near Leyburn?
I assure my hon. Friend that those of us who were in the cavalry at Catterick know very well that the weather conditions in north Yorkshire from January to April are no laughing matter. Therefore, could my hon. Friend postpone the writ?

Mr. Skinner: You see, it is a strange place, this the House of Commons. It is only 10 minutes since I thought I was gradually pulling my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow towards me, but here we are moving on to the weather. Another thought has passed through my hon. Friend's head, and off he goes again.
My hon. Friend should remember my initial remark about balance, and forget for one moment the drudgery of Catterick camp. My hon. Friend should try to remove from his mind yomping—I think that is the word—up and down Richmond, Catterick and Leyburn or calling at Leeming Bar to meet his friends in the Royal Air Force. When the writ is carried, my hon. Friend could go back and renew old acquaintances. Undoubtedly he will bump into some Labour people who will say, "Is that Tam Dalyell at the door?" They will say "Come in, Tam. We hated him as much as you did." What a welcome! Imagine my hon. Friend being let loose during this by-election—that could be a valuable weapon. The sooner my hon. Friend understands that he could play a tremendous role, the better. My hon. Friend should vote with us today, if we reach a vote, so that we can get on the move. If we get the vote, we shall hot-foot it up the A 1 to Catterick, where my hon. Friend has been many times.

Mr. Tredinnick: It is true that the weather is relevant to a by-election at this time of the year, but the hon. Gentleman should also consider the possibility of writs being moved in other parts of the country other than north Yorkshire. This time last year, the east midlands suffered extremely bad weather. What the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about his service with the cavalry and the difficulties with trapped vehicles could pertain to areas further south than Yorkshire. It is not only the moors in that beautiful part of the huge constituency of Richmond, Yorks, which suffer from heavy snowfalls. When the M69 motorway is blocked by snow and there are difficulties on the MI, that reinforces the importance of considering whether a writ should be moved at this time of year at all. If that is the case, does it not put a slightly different complexion on the argument that the hon. Gentleman is deploying, and should he not, in deference to the House, explain the situation for other parts of the country? He is taking a very narrow view.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): This is an enormously long intervention and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman may be able to catch my eye a little later.

Mr. Tredinnick: I apologise. I had not intended to delay the House, but I felt that I must raise the point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the House has got the point.

Mr. Skinner: The lad is full of earnest endeavour. If we encourage him, he may yet be helpful. However, he has got a thing about the weather—we all understand that—and I am getting a bit resentful of the idea that people in the north cannot stand the weather. It is beginning to stick in my craw when I hear comments that people in the south can handle all kinds of weather. Do hon. Members think that up in the north, and in Richmond in particular, people worry about the weather and that they were concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was yomping through Catterick camp and elsewhere?
The people in the north are made of stern stuff. Just imagine sending a message from the House to Richmond saying, "Do you know that in the House of Commons today they deferred the writ for Richmond because they were frightened that people in the north of England cannot get out in bad weather?" They would regard that as nothing less than contempt.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: As a Member representing a neighbouring constituency, may I reassure the House that in Cleveland and north Yorkshire we do not have worries about the weather and we shall be out voting for Labour and Frank Robson regardless of the weather? Last weekend, I went to Wensleydale in Richmond constituency. I invite hon. Members to go up for a weekend to walk there: it is beautiful countryside.

Mr. Skinner: I went up there last year as well. We had a meeting in Richmond before all this and I met Joan Maynard. She used to be a Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Brightside and she now lives at Thirsk. She used to be on the local authority there. Thirsk has been in the Richmond constituency since 1983. Previously, it was in the consituency of Thirsk and Malton, but the Tories changed the boundaries, so Joan Maynard lives in Richmond constituency. I went up for a meeting in Richmond, little knowing that we should be having a videoed re-run later on. The meeting took place in the market hall and it was packed out. We had to bring chairs in from an adjoining room and folk filled all the seats. The place was alive. We discussed matters of a serious and heavy political nature including those that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has mentioned, and which he would, no doubt, like to mention at more length today. It was a straightforward public meeting, which had a good atmosphere.
Richmond is a quaint market town with a lovely little theatre. It is like going back in time: one finds places like that in Britain. Sadly, I flit in and out and only spend a few hours in places, so I do not see enough of the wonderful places that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) has mentioned. She lives nearby and has been to Richmond recently, but I do not have enough time to see all the beauty of these places. When the writ is agreed, I am looking forward to going up there and revisiting Richmond, Northallerton, Catterick camp and Leeming Bar. I and Peter Heathfield were held up there on our way

to a meeting during the miners' strike. That is a real diversion, but I just remembered that when I looked at the map. I remember those two hours at Leeming Bar service station because it looked as if we would not get to Northumberland for the meeting. The constituency is, in many ways, part of old England and there it is, stuck up in the north, surrounded by several Labour constituencies.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am much persuaded by what my hon. Friend is saying about having the Richmond by-election as soon as possible. As he has been going round some of the places in the constituency, clearly knows them well and is an expert on etymology, I wonder whether he can explain to me why a parish in the constituency is called Snape with Thorpe. Can my hon. Friend throw some light on that because it seems a strange combination of names? It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is not here to try to explain. The name may mean nothing. It may be just a bit of innocent pillow biting. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely skilful parliamentarian, will not go down that road and answer that question directly.

Mr. Skinner: You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that name conjures up many wild ideas and I shall not go down that road. If I did, someone else would jump up and come up with another matter, and on it would go. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that it is all right for him to raise such points, but we are about the serious business of getting the writ through and we could spend all morning talking about Snape with Thorpe.
I shall say only that we know that all these quaint little names are usually derived from somthing of a geographical nature. The chances are that it is to do with a River Snape meeting a River Thorpe. I am not saying that for sure, but it is usually something of that nature. I hope my hon. Friend does not get any wild ideas, because there is probably a simple explanation.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful for that explanation; my hon. Friend has reassured me somewhat. But let us consider the people of Hutton Hang, which is also in the constituency. The people may want something said, in the course of the by-election, about why they should be living in a place called Hutton Hang. I thought that Hutton was one of the great Yorkshire cricketers. I would not like to be a Yorkshireman living in a place called Hutton Hang. I am sure that they do not want to hang Hutton and that they will want one of the candidates to say that, when elected, he or she will do something about that. Names are important in such a constituency.

Mr. Skinner: Possibly Hutton Hang is a peaceful haven for retired spies.

Mr. Stern: I am conscious of the warning given about this, but the point that I want to make is important in understanding the effects on the nature of the constituency of etymology and history. The old Anglo-Saxon names have changed, and that is often resented by the people living there. Let us take a good old-fashioned name for a small river, such as Gash Beck. There must be tremendous resentment that, with the advent of the Normans, that become Scargill.

Mr. Skinner: As I said earlier, the constituency is overlooked from the west and north-west by Scargill high moor and he—that is, the moor—could be looking down on the whole proceedings. I suppose that it is a nice tidy place to which to go, and if we go there, we shall probably find someone from British Coal stuck at the top.

Mr. Flannery: Together with other hon. Members, my hon. Friend is showing us graphically—the imagination boggles—what a wide constituency Richmond, Yorks, is. There is often trouble in people's minds about which is the Richmond in Yorkshire and which the Richmond in Surrey. Dr. Arne once wrote a lovely song about the "Sweet Lass of Richmond Hill", and the contest about which Richmond he meant is still going on.
I should like to refer briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was in the cavalry. I knew Catterick because I was in the Scottish infantry towards the end of the war—in fact, in the Royal Scots, which I believe was my hon. Friend's regiment. Perhaps he and I could canvass together and as we yomp home he could go on horseback because he is a cavalryman. As an infantryman, I would have to yomp on foot. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a good idea?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must now bring the debate back to the motion.

Mr. Skinner: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the by-election writ is issued, people will be doing different jobs and it is becoming obvious to everybody that two people will be sent to Catterick camp. One will be my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, and we now know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough will be with him. I think that they should knock on the door and say, "We have come to canvass in the by-election. We are not here to advocate market forces, and if the Goernment applied market forces to Catterick camp, they would privatise it." That would be a good line for my hon. Friends to follow, because 38 per cent. of the population in the Richmond constituency have connections with the services and related industries. It is important that people understand that high incidence of 38 per cent. In the rest of Britain the figure is normally about 20 per cent. It is so high in Richmond because of Catterick camp and Leeming Bar. I am sure that people will understand that market forces have nothing to do with providing the wherewithal for the Army and the RAF, However, although there is a good political point in that, I am not going to develop it.

Mr. Buchan: I wish that my hon. Friend would follow up that point about the election to the possible presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as it raises many constitutional issues. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow saying that he was in the cavalry. We have an image of Tam on a horse, digging out a tank. The Scots Greys and the cavalry are a phoney element in all this, because the real force at Catterick is the Royal Tank Regiment, in which I served. The most important instruction given when some of the cavalry were brought into tanks was the one saying that officers of field rank and above need not wear spurs in the tanks.

Mr. Michael Shersby: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fail to see what the military career of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has to do with the moving of a writ for the constituency of

Richmond, Yorks. Surely the House should concentrate on the important issue before it instead of on these long diversions into personal anecdotes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House will be aware that on more than one occasion I have said that we must now debate the writ before us. I hope that hon. Members will take that point to heart and that the hon. Member for Bolsover will proceed along those lines.

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mr. Skinner: If my hon. Friends will give me just a minute, I will answer that point. I do not want to get into any difficulties with the Chair. Up to now you" Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker before you, have not admonished me. Some of my hon. Friends may have been a little exuberant, but I can understand that. However, I have not yet received any admonitions from the Chair. That is unusual, but it is true, and I am trying my best not to get one.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing the Chair into that position at the moment. I should be glad if he would now return to the moving of the writ.

Mr. Skinner: On this question of the writ, when reading "Erskine May" I became aware of another aspect of this matter which it is important that we should understand. As I said at the beginning, Back Benchers should know what it is that enables the Front Benchers, who normally do this job, to move the writ.
A curious anomaly exists nowadays, which arises out of the Common Market. I was speaking to the chief Clerk yesterday about this—said he, name dropping. I was surprised by what I read in "Erskine May". In 1973, the Speaker's conference on electoral law recommended that the writ should normally be moved within three months of a vacancy arising. In strict theoretical terms, that has happened in this case, because Leon Brittan wa a Member of the House until the Christmas recess so in those strict terms, three months have not elapsed. However, I think that we should consider—this could be a matter for a future Speaker's conference, which is why I have thrown it in—whether if somebody is given a job in the Common Market on 22 July—irrespective of who that person is—can we argue, in purely analytical terms, that that lapse of time is according to "Erskine May".
The section on page 26 that deals with new writs states:
Whenever vacancies occur in the House of Commons from any legal cause, after the original issue of writs for a new Parliament by the Crown, writs are issued out of Chancery by a warrant from the Speaker, which he issues, when the House is sitting, upon the order of the House of Commons. The causes of vacancy are the death of Members or their succession to a peerage,
or, and this is the interesting thing—
the acceptance of a disqualifying office,
The important word there is "acceptance". Was 22 july the date of the acceptance of a disqualifying office? I am making this point seriously, so that hon. Members and others who may take part in future electoral changes can consider whether the announcement of the job of European Commisioner means the acceptance of a disqualifying office, albeit that in this case the hon. Member continued to serve his constituency until the end of December—several months later. That important issue


must be resolved and if we do nothing else this morning, at least we will have drawn the attention of hon. Members of all parties to the fact that that anomaly must be cleared up while we continue to appoint Commissioners to Europe.
I do not mean this in any mealy mouthed way, but the question of Members of the European Parliament should be cleared up at the same time. I accept that it is not easy, but this point applies right across the board and I am sure that hon. Members will accept it. Perhaps, as a result of this short debate, those concerned will consider this matter to find out whether the acceptance of a disqualifying office means the nomination for Commissioner, as opposed to the time when the hon. Member decides to apply for the Manor of Northstead.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend think that being an EEC Commissioner is a disqualifying office? Surely a disqualifying office is an office of profit under the Crown. As I understood it, the former Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorks had to apply for the Manor of Northstead in order to get an office of profit under the Crown, and therefore had to give up his seat.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is well versed in this subject. However, during discussions on this subject, which I have gone into at length, I have discovered that "office of profit under the Crown" is no longer the phrase used. The phrase now is "a disqualifying office". I had been brought up believing that the way to become disqualified from Parliament was to take on an office of profit under the Crown. I used that phrase earlier deliberately. The phrase is actually "disqualifying office". Page 26 of "Erskine May" gives a lead to the idea that the acceptance of that job could be—not necessarily, but could be—sufficient disqualification. Although I do not want to make heavy weather of that in this case, that issue must be dealt with in the future.

Several Hon Members: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I shall give way to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.

Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend confirm the rather curious situation that some offices of profit under the Crown are not disqualifying offices? A lawyer who is a Member of the House can be a recorder or a temporary judge and obtain substantial rewards from the Crown without ceasing to be a Member of Parliament, because that legal job is not included in the list of disqualifying offices.

Mr. Skinner: The list of disqualifying offices is rather strange. I did not complete it. Other disqualifying offices are
succession to a peerage,…elevation of Members to the peerage,…bankrupty, lunacy, the establishment of any other legal disqualification for sitting and voting".
My hon. Friend has raised a point that I hope will be taken up by a future Speaker's Conference on this whole question.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question in the context of disqualification in a wider sense. I started off agreeing with

my hon. Friend, but he has begun to lose me. In view of what some of our hon. Friends have said, it seems that the only candidates fit to contest an election in this area are people who served in the Royal Tank Regiment or the infantry. That excludes all women in the House of Commons and even many men.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows only too well that I think there are not enough women elected to the House and that there are not enough women Opposition Members. At the recent Labour party conference, I and many others supported the idea that that situation should be improved. However, that issue will have to be dealt with on another occasion.
Earlier I said that the disqualification should start from the date that people accept the job. I want to develop that argument. In local government that would apply. If somebody in local government disqualifies himself from being a member of a local authority, there could immediately be a call by the contending parties, or even individual electors, to fill that vacancy. That could happen except just before an overall election. For most of the year it is possible for somebody in local government who it could be argued, does not wield as much authority as a Member of Parliament—although that is not true in some cases—to expect to have that vacancy filled straight away. For elections to Parliament, it seems as if the whole affair can drag on for a long time.

Mr. Tony Banks: One learns much by listening to my hon. Friend, who is such an expert in these matters. I have the 18th edition of "Erskine May" and I suspect that my hon. Friend has an earlier one. In my edition, I can see no list of disqualifying offices. I can see a reference to the acceptance of a disqualifying office. I understand that this by-election will be brought about because becoming a Commissioner is considered to be a disqualifying office.

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Banks: That is the point. I should like to know exactly why there has to be a by-election. Would it not be possible for Leon Brittan to be a Commissioner and to continue as a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Skinner: That is an interesting point. The writ is being moved this morning as a result of Leon Brittan accepting the Manor of Northstead and taking on a disqualifying office in that name. My hon. Friend will remember that I spoke about the Manor of Northstead at the beginning of my speech. That is the disqualifying office in this case, and not the Common Market office. Many people believe that we should stay in the Common Market for ever, but I am not one of them.

Ms. Primarolo: Those people are misguided.

Mr. Skinner: As my hon. Friend says, they are misguided. However, since many people believe that that will happen, we must clear up this matter. There will be others in future, and that is why I draw specific attention to it. The disqualifying office is not the Common Market; it is the Manor of Northstead in this case.

Mr. Dalyell: In order to save time I should like to put a question to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who cannot be here today, yesterday tried to get the Leader of the House to


make some definitive statement on what exactly are offices of profit, given the European Community situation. This is a central and important point.

Mr. Skinner: We are in an interesting area. The disqualifying office is a grey area. When I had not been a Member of this House very long, in one of the general elections in 1974 a Liberal Member, now Lord Winstanley, was elected in a constituency in the Greater Manchester area, the constituency of Hazelgrove. I came in here one day and saw on the annuciator a strange little reference to some quaint little Bill that was to be moved at 3.30 in the afternoon. I thought, "What's all this then?" I made some inquiries and found that before and during the general election campaign that Liberal Member had unwittingly held a disqualified office. He was a doctor acting for tribunals and therefore receiving money from the Crown. I made some inquiries and said to Ted Short, now Lord Glenamara, "What are you going to do here then, because I think that this Bill is retrospective legislation."
At that time, the Labour Government seemed to lean over backwards to help the other side. I never quite discovered why, but they were very good at it. It is the old thing about the Labour movement being very impartial while the others trample all over us. Lord Glenamara said, "We are going to undisqualify him." I said, "Why? We have one down already and we have a tiny majority." It was like playing cricket but they do not quite say that now. What happened? Madam Deputy Speaker was probably here at that time, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was definitely here, and he will probably elaborate on it.
I was mystified as I watched this developing piece of retrospective legislation that would allow a Liberal Member not to be disqualified. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I thought that that was what I was here for, to get rid of the enemy. I learned something that day, I was almost alone and friendless, but I carried out the opposition.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I give way to the Common Market man here.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Hon. Members have been listening with admiration—I hope that he will forgive me for using that word—to the hon. Gentleman's polemical skills. This is a parliamentary rather than a party occasion. The hon. Gentleman made some valid points about the complexities of disqualification. Earlier, he spoke proudly about not receiving an admonition from the Chair, whereas other hon. Members had received such admonitions because they had digressed in interventions. That was equally impressive. Then the hon. Gentleman began to spoil his speech because he went back into his traditional terrain of attacking the Common Market. That was rather disappointing because, as he knows, many hon. Members, including a growing number of Labour Members, are keen on the Common Market. That is a fascinating spectacle to observe, because in the past Labour Members have always denied that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to get into that territory, because he would regret it and might lose some of the admiration for his polemical skills. In that context may I ask him to comment on the interesting difference between the date of the appointment by the Chancellor to

the Manor of Northstead and 1 January—or is it 4 January—the starting date for the new Commissioner? Constitutional lawyers who are expert in European and national matters might say the 4 January was the valid one. That might affect the date of the by-election.

Mr. Skinner: That is the argument of Members on the Government Front Bench, some of whom are trying to escape from their Common Market pasts. They are not doing that very strongly, and we are having a lot of cosmetics and window dressings from the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman should not be so sure about this vis-a-vis the Common Market. The landscape is moving a little. The argument is whether the grounds of a disqualifying office came into effect when the offer was made on 22 July or when the Commissioner started the job. That point should be cleared up.
The Government are currently discussing the possibility of stopping someone who works for one local authority being a local government representative in another. If there no disqualifying office vis-a-vis the Common Market, it is a double standard to say to people in local government that they cannot work for one local authority and be a representative of another just because many of those people are Labour people.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for almost one hour and 20 minutes. It is not unique for a private Member to move writs for an election. I moved 15 of them on 17 December 1958 in two minutes, and in 12 lines of Hansard.
However, it is unique for such a debate to take place on the moving of a writ. This is being used as a dilatory motion to frustrate private Members' time. All private Members normally wish to safeguard that time. Although the hon. Gentleman has been very humorous, this act of procedure does not help the House generally. It does not help the House's reputation and will not be understood by people outside the House.

Mr. Skinner: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that there is without doubt a majority of people in this House who, contrary to the views that he has expressed about dilatory motions from Opposition Members, regard the question of Back-Bench Members jumping the queue in the private Members' Ballot and getting to the top of the list as a practice to be deplored. If there is a question—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have strayed a long way from the motion before us. I remind the House that I am careful about precedents, and during today's debate I am following precedents.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just, however obliquely, referred to me and accused me of a piece of parliamentary malpractice—queue jumping. Is it in order for me to reply to him during the debate, because it is possible that we shall never reach my debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Obviously, any hon. Member in the Chamber who catches the eye of whoever might be in the Chair may well be called. I would hope to call the hon. Lady in due course.

Ms. Clare Short: I want to take my hon. Friend back to "Erskine May" on the


question of moving writs because this is important in the teaching role that he has adopted. The moving of a writ takes precedence over other business. I should like to know how frequently the same writ can be moved. If, surprisingly, my hon. Friend fails to persuade hon. Members today, could someone re-introduce the writ next week?

Mr. Skinner: At least one Conservative Member has spoken of dilatory action. It was suggested a few days ago that the moving of a writ was a means of developing such action. The Clerks were unsure of the ground here. This has been a learning process for me, my hon. Friends and those people who advise the Chair, because that point was a matter for consideration. I shall not name names, but there was a complete blank on the question as to whether it was possible for a further writ to be moved within days of another having been moved and not dealt with satisfactorily. That very question was a puzzle for at least a week.
So far as I understand it—I shall be on record in Hansard—the matter has been resolved. The writ can be moved again. However, a writ cannot be moved again—this is another part of the learning process—if it is defeated. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that I am not hereabouts trying to get it defeated. I would not attempt to do that, because I want to win over the House and get the writ accepted; but, if I thought for one moment that I could not carry a majority, I would make absolutely sure that it was not defeated. If it is defeated, that is a different question. That would mean that the writ would fall for the rest of the Session, and none of us want that.
This is all part of understanding more about the quaint procedures in the Commons. It is interesting to note that, for a whole week, the establishment in the House of Commons was not sure about the answer. I can give the answer today in the affirmative, because I embarked on this procedure. We are beginning to dot a few i's and cross a few t's on the procedures of the House simply because this debate is taking place. Some people think that it is ritual, but it is not. It is a way of drawing some of these procedures to the attention of the House.
I was dealing with the question of the Common Market and how it is counterposed to people who lose or leave their seats in local government. That is also part of the valuable learning process, so I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) raised that point. It could not have been cleared up if I had not embarked on this procedure a few days ago.

Mrs. Wise: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I thought for a while that, because he received an admonition from me, I would not have the chance to intervene again. I am grateful that he is at last letting me make a remark.
Does my hon. Friend think that the contribution from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is something to be proud of? Is it something to be proud of, to move 15 writs in two minutes or 12 lines of Hansard? I could scarcely believe it. Is that anything to be proud of, or could it be said to be treating the electors' interests with scant regard? I should like to discuss at greater length the interests of the

voters and potential voters in that constituency because there are pros and cons and some of us have not yet made up our minds. Generally speaking, we want an early by-election so that we do not leave people unrepresented, but we must think again of convenience and practicality from the voters' point of view. We have not examined that enough.

Mr. Skinner: I hope to examine those pros and cons, but there is limit to how far I can examine the pros and cons of, for example, the Health Service with regard to the Richmond by-election in terms of strict party political objects. The subject could certainly be touched upon. My hon. Friend may well do that if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if that is what she means.

Mrs. Wise: No, I do not mean that at all. We must examine the characteristics of this constituency. Referring back to the weather, has my hon. Friend considered the extent of car ownership in the Richmond, Yorks constituency? Has he taken into account the fact that women have very little access to cars, even if there is a car in the family?
In response to other comments that have been made today, as a northerner born and bred, I am not insulting the people of the north when I suggest that the weather must be taken into account. When I was a little girl on Tyneside I grew up believing that Yorkshire was the start of the south. I do not speak with any prejudice against northerners. However, the fact remains that voting can be very difficult for women voters without access to cars, especially if they are Labour voters and the Labour party may be short of cars because we represent the non-car owning classes to a large extent. Has my hon. Friend taken that into account?

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now 11 o'clock, and this is the point on a Friday when statements are made if they are going to be made. I would be grateful if you could say whether you have received any sign from the Secretary of State for Transport that he will respond to our representations that he should make a statement about certain circumstances revealed today in one of London's local newspapers, the Hampstead and Highgate Express? It revealed that, although the Secretary of State announced that Dr. Tony Ridley, the Chairman of London Underground Ltd., had offered his resignation, which the Secretary of State had accepted on 10 November, Dr. Ridley is still occupying an office at London Underground, is receiving the help of a paid secretary and personal assistant and has a chauffeur-driven car and a car phone. All that is provided at the expense of London Underground. That seems to be in flat contradiction with what the Secretary of State told us on 10 November. I want to know whether he intends to make a statement.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has received no such application from any Minister to make a statement.

Mr. Dobson: This is a most important matter. When the House was told, and I quote—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter by way of a point of order. I have already made it absolutely clear to the House


that no such application has been made to Mr. Speaker. The Chair has no authority over such statements made by Ministers. We must now proceed.

Mr. Dobson: I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the Leader of the House is here. Most hon. Members would appreciate it if he could carry a message to the Secretary of State for Transport saying that we wish—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Unhappily the hon. Gentleman is attempting to enter into debate, which I will not allow. He has quite rightly made the point that the Leader of the House is present. Mr. Speaker has had no such application. It must be left at that.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave Mr. Speaker notice that I would raise this point of order at this time earlier this morning.
I wish to raise a point of order concerning the deportation of Mr. Viraj Mendis. He is due to be deported from Gatwick airport in 58 minutes' time. I raised this matter during business questions yesterday, and asked for a statement to he made about the Government's intentions which would enable a Minister from the Home Office to report to the House. He could have told us whether discussions and efforts have been made overnight and this morning to try to defer the deportation to allow discussions to take place to find a safe refuge for Mr. Mendis in a third country—and if they had been completed.
My next point is central to my point of order. Yesterday, during business questions, and today in an amendment to early-day motion 287, I drew the attention of the House to a case last December in which, after making representations on behalf of a political activist who was a Pakistan national—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Of course I must listen to points of order. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will raise a point of order with which I can deal from the Chair. Otherwise, it is an abuse of the House.

Mr. Madden: I recognise that completely. I know from experience that written assurances from Home Office Ministers that individuals face no risk of persecution if they are deported to certain countries are not worth the paper that they are written on. I was told last December that this individual faced no risk—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making a point of order. He is making a speech to the Chair the subject of which has been dealt with by the House earlier. I can reply to the hon. Gentleman's original point of order, which asked me whether Mr. Speaker had received an application from a Home Office Minister to make a statement. The answer is no. Mr. Speaker has received no such application, and no Home Office Minister is to make a statement this morning.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the last thing that my hon. Friend wants to do is challenge your authoritiy Madam Deputy Speaker, and nor would I. We recognise your predicament. However, similarly you recognise our predicament that emergencies are not allowed to happen in the House of Commons on a Friday. No doubt on any other day of the week, my hon. Friend

could have raised the matter as a Standing Order No. 20 application and that is not intended to challenge your authority. The rules of the House do not allow the Standing Order No. 20 procedure on a Friday. My hon. Friend want to refer to an emergency and a genuine problem which merits discussion. We would appreciate guidance from the Chair on the methods available to my hon. Friend to raise an issue of this importance on a Friday.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has had an opportunity to express his feelings on the matter through a point of order, and a very long point of order at that. He asked whether Mr. Speaker had had an application from the Home Office to make a statement. I am observing the practice of the House in responding to that, by saying that no such application has been made. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to abuse our procedures. The fact that there can be no Standing Order No. 20 application on a Friday morning is something that the Chair can do nothing about. We must now proceed.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I am trying to make is that, despite written assurances, the man for whom I was trying to get political asylum was arrested as he walked off the plane in Pakistan. He remains in prison and many of us fear that the same destiny awaits Mr. Mendis if he is deported in 58 minutes' time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has no authority over such matters. It is an abuse of our proceedings that such matters be raised at this time in that way.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order. I understand that the Chair has no jurisdiction in that respect. However, the House is owed something. We were given assurances and statements were made by the Home Secretary from the Dispatch Box earlier in the week. We were given news. It seems appropriate that we should ask that the Leader of the House should arrange for a further report to be made to the House so that hon. Members are kept abreast of the latest developments. We should be exchanging those views.
My point of order is that, in view of the fact that we heard statements and were given assurances, we are now entitled to receive from the Dispatch Box the latest. information available to Ministers, and I think that the proceedings should allow that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that no Minister has applied to come to the House this morning to make a statement. We must leave it at that. I call Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great deal of concern among Back Benchers, certainly on the Labour Benches, about the welfare of Mr. Viraj Mendis. You are a custodian, as is Mr. Speaker, of Back Benchers' rights. There must be a way in which those rights can be exercised in an emergency such as this. We have heard that the procedures do not allow that to happen on a Friday. That must be wrong. We were given assurances that Mr. Viraj Mendis would be given an opportunity to go to a third country. Is he going to go to a third country or—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a question which the Chair can answer. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, if it is thought wrong that our procedures do not allow that matter to be raised on a Friday, it is up to the House to amend the procedures to meet those demands. I call Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that people do not think that the issue that we have been discussing this morning is one in which we are adopting a kind of ruse. We honorably want to know about Viraj Mendis. It is wrong that hon. Members do not know things that the outside world probably knows at this moment. As Members of Parliament we have the right to know what is happening.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are raising with the Chair matters of debate which are not points of order. I answered the crucial point of order by saying that, to Mr. Speaker's knowledge, no Minister is coming to the House this morning.

Ms. Short: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is now a serious matter, and it involves you. We learnt this morning that the Home Secretary lied to us when he made his statement about Viraj Mendis.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to proceed in that manner. Will she withdraw that and rephrase her question?

Ms. Short: The Home Secretary led us to believe that he was giving an assurance, which has proved to be false. He sat there and told us—[Interruption.] He gave an assurance to the whole House— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. To the best of my knowledge, the hon. Lady has withdrawn and rephrased what she had to say.

Ms. Short: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were right in your interpretation of what I said. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Lady withdraw her original statement?

Ms. Short: I certainly withdrew the word and rephrased what I said.
We are talking about a man who might be going to his death. It is a serious matter. In the past year, 700 people have been killed in Sri Lanka, and the Government of Sri Lanka cannot give assurances because a political movement is behind it. The Home Secretary gave us the assurance that there would be enough time to consider Viraj Mendis going to a third country. He is now moving so fast that that assurance is worthless. The Home Secretary has misled the House. He has given us a false assurance. The Leader of the House should tell us whether the Home Secretary will come to the House and explain how he misled us in that way.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members have already explained to the House the difficulty about raising Standing Order No. 20 on a Friday. There is also a

time-honoured custom in the House that hon. Members who are dissatisfied because there is no statement may raise points of order. I realise that that creates difficulties for the Chair, but it also creates some difficulties for hon. Members who have other important business. I am sure that you are aware that, on occasions, in various ways, hon. Members have raised points of order for anything up to half an hour or longer while the usual channels negotiate to see whether a statement can be made. Such attempts place the Chair in considerable difficulty.
Clearly, many Opposition Members feel sufficiently strongly about the matter to be tempted to continue trying to raise points of order in an effort to get a statement. Obviously, that procedure is unsatisfactory. When the Chair feels that a point of order has been put repeatedly, it is possible for the Chair to state that it would help the House if a statement were made. I wonder whether you would consider that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have considered very seriously all the points of order that have been put to me. There may be time for negotiations to take place and for a Minister to come here in due course, but I can only repeat that Mr. Speaker has had no such application. To the best of my knowledge, no Minister is coming here to make a statement this morning. I can only say to hon. Members who have raised points of order that, as has been pointed out, the Leader of the House is here and has no doubt taken notice of what has been said.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is within the recollection of all of us that, on occasions such as this Friday, the Leader of the House has seen fit to intervene during exchanges to say that the Government would make a statement at a certain time. I plead with him. Mr. Mendis is due to be deported to an uncertain destiny in 45 minutes. I tried to mention the matter on Wednesday, but I was prevented. I raised it with the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and he heard what I said. I have raised it with colleagues today. I appeal to the Leader of the House to tell us when the Government will make a statement about their intentions.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: We have now had sufficient points of order on this matter. I will take the last one from the hon. Lady.

Ms. Gordon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Viraj Mendis was taken to Gatwick some time ago. We are entitled to a statement, as we were given an assurance that he would be given the opportunity to go to a third country. The House is entitled to know what is happening.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yet again, and I hope for the last time, to the best of Mr. Speaker's knowledge, no Minister is coming to the House this morning to make any such statement.

Mr. Skinner: They make enough statements when we are not here.
I was dealing with the—

Mr. Cohen: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is plain that the Government will not respond to the issue and do not care a jot for people such as Mr. Viraj Mendis—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a number of points of order this morning. Let us keep the temperature down. I asked the hon. Gentleman to come directly to his point of order.

Mr. Cohen: All through the last series of points of order that all hon. Members were concerned about, there was a constant gabble from the Government side of the House—an outrageous gabble in the circumstances. I found it difficult to hear what some of my hon. Friends were saying. That shows what little interest Conservative Members have for the life of an individual.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no control over human behaviour.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Michael Stern: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Before I give way, I must deal with the question about disqualifying offices. Luckily, as a result of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—I managed to get hold of a book on disqualifying offices, including being a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend, the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and other hon. Friends wanted to know about it. There is a list—it is longer than I thought. It would be sheer repetition to read it out. However, one immediately comes to mind. In recent times, there has been a change in the number of disqualifying offices. It is on page 16 in the House of Commons—

Mr. Tony Banks: Which book is it?

Mr. Skinner: It is not "Erskine May". We are now dealing with the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which has been amended on occasions.
We are now discussing whether the office of Commissioner should be a disqualifying office. In 1985 there was added to the list any member of a residuary body established by part 7 of the Local Government Act 1985 or is in receipt of remuneration.
That means that, notwithstanding our entry to the Common Market in 1973, the Government of the day managed to change the list or add to the number of disqualifying officers, as a result of the abolition of the GLC. Why has there been no attempt to add the office of Euro-Commissoner? The inclusion of a member of a residuary body means that the matter has been looked at, but not in respect of the commissioner. That is an anomaly.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend knows much about the subject. If a Member of Parliament has accepted an office of profit under the Crown, which is one of the disqualifying offices, and he leaves—that is why we are having a by-election in Richmond—at some later stage is it possible for that person to stand for election and return to the House? That is the first point.
If there were any difference, could it be that a Commissioner has not been added to the list of disqualifying offices, for the simple reason that the establishment believes that it is most appropriate for a commissioner who gives up being Commissioner to come back to the House of Commons. I should like my hon. Friend to clear up that point.

Mr. Skinner: That is the point that I was developing. [Interruption.] Part of the problem is that as the Common

Market is of the establishment orientation it does not want to tread on any toes and stop these people returning. It is important to recall—[Interruption.] It does not matter. Hon. Members do not want to listen.

Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I receive many letters from constituents saying how unhappy they are about what goes on in this Chamber and I seek your guidance on what I should say to them. They dwell on many issues, not least the fact that every time a motion on abortion appears various tactics are used, such as moving the writ this morning, to prevent a free debate and a free vote. Will you allow us to move to a vote on this matter? Clearly, for a by-election writ to be discussed for an hour and three quarters is an abuse of procedures.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. I am extremely flattered that he has asked my advice on responding to his constituents' mail. I should have thought that he was capable of replying himself. Secondly, several hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, and I cannot accept a closure motion at this stage.

Mr. Wigley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you say whether it would be possible for the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to move the closure motion when an hon. Member is moving a motion such as this?

Madam Deputy Speaker: At this stage no hon. Member could possibly move the closure, because the motion before the House has not yet been finally moved.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps you could be clearer on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, and confirm that it is not possible to move a closure motion on the mover of this motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Skinner: It is not for me to get involved in applications for motions from Conservative Members. Hon. Members on both sides of the house have had letters of complaint about Members of Parliament who want to queue-jump from seventh to first place. There is no argument about that.

Mr. Stern: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: No. I shall deal with the question why the Euro-Commissioner is not included in the list of disqualifying officers. The establishment of this place has decided that it would be good if people went out there and came back. Woy Jenkins of the wadicals did exactly that. [Laughter.] he got a job as a Commissioner, then became the President and then came back as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead. Commissioners are not included simply because in the past people have gone to the Common Market and reserved the right to be re-elected as a Member of Parliament, if they can get in. In this case, Leon Brittan has expressed the wish to reserve the right to return.
If members of the London residuary body or any other residuary body are disqualified for taking that job, I would have thought that a Commissioner should also be disqualified. If they could return, so be it. That does not matter. It is not the important question. My question is what happens at the beginning.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not wrong of the hon. Gentleman to introduce personalities? Should he not stick to technical, constitutional and legal points? Is he right or wrong in saying that a Commissioner post is an office of profit under the Crown in the conventional sense? Does it come under the original conventional list in its intention or the present list? The hon. Gentleman may be right in saying—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this, but he has strayed from the motion.

Mr. Dykes: With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, and forgive me for saying this, because I always like to take your guidance and advice, this is an important and interesting question. Many parliamentarians would not know whether a Commissioner holds an office of profit under the Crown in the conventional sense or a new post created by a treaty to which this country acceded later, so it is only indirectly an office of profit under the Crown because the United Kingdom has acceded to that treaty and the Crown is the representation of our signing that treaty. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, but perhaps he thinks that he is right.

Mr. Skinner: I come down on the opposite side to the hon. Gentleman simply because Commissioners receive British taxpayers' money. They do not get all their money from Britain. The money is put into one pot and they get £97,000 out of it. Their salary has been increased. They get taxpayers' money and in simple, straightforward, legal terms that means money from the Crown.
Moreover, Commissioners also swear an oath of allegiance to the Common Market. A member of the London residuary body does not do that. That is a second reason why the Speaker's Conference should examine this. It should examine this on remuneration grounds and on the question of taking the oath of allegiance to the Common Market. That is why this is an important matter, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend happy about the comparison between Roy Jenkins and Leon Brittan? Leon Brittan did something quite different. He negotiated the resignation correspondence. Never in the history of our country has resignation correspondence from the Prime Minister of the day ended by saying,
I hope it will not be long before you return to high office to continue your ministerial career.
How on earth would she have written that, given the events of Westland, for which Leon Brittan was the scapegoat, unless there had been—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion before us is whether or not a writ is issued for the county constituency of Richmond in Yorkshire, and he is straying far from the point.

Mr. Skinner: We were discussing the number of disqualifying offices and I said that I was surprised that the long list does not yet include EEC Commissioners, which would be a likely addition at a future Speaker's Conference. I was saying that Commissioners take an oath of allegiance and get remuneration which is partly paid by the British taxpayer—and we know what the Prime Minister thinks about taxpayers' money, except apparently on this occasion. I was about to refer to some other matters, including the surprise to me that one of the disqualifying offices is that of the Parliamentary

Commissioner for Administration. I can see why when think about it, but I wonder whether the list will include the new ombudsman for The Sun as well. I can hardly believe that he qualifies as an ombudsman in the real sense. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West wants to talk about residuary matters.

Mr. Tony Banks: No, I do not want to talk about the residuary body. I look forward to the day when I can walk over to county hall and personally deliver the dismissal note from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) as Prime Minister to Godfrey Taylor, the present chair of the London residuary body, but that is another matter and I can wait a few more months.
Technically speaking, there is no need to have a by-election in Richmond, Yorks because the position of Commisssioner is not an office of profit under the Crown. It has nothing to do with the Crown in that respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that it was an office above the Crown when one thinks about the EEC. Technically, it was not necessary for Leon Brittan to resign. He could have remained as the Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorks and been on his nice little earner over at the EEC . It is not a question of the EEC taking Britain's taxes, but of Brittan taking Britain's taxes.

Mr. Skinner: In strict theoretical terms, that is absolutely correct. Unquestionably if the office of Commissioner is not on the disqualifications list, obviously Leon Brittan could have continued. It is true that it is possible for some Members of Parliament to have a dozen other jobs moonlighting while carrying on as Members of Parliament. It is conceivable that they could be Euro-Commissioners such people resign because, in the first instance someone in that position resigned. Once the practice was established, it would have been frowned upon to act otherwise.
Let us clear the matter up. It has been valuable for me to draw these points out this morning in moving the writ because hon. Members on both sides of the House, including Front Benchers, will be able to consider again whether a person who swears an oath of allegiance to another body and who receives, in part, taxpayers' money for taking on the job should be equated with a member of a residuary body, an ombudsman or whoever else is on the list.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: My hon. Friend is getting close to an interesting question. Why is he moving a by-election writ? Is it not within the rules of the House of Commons that being a Commissioner of the European Community is incompatible with being a Member of Parliament. The rules of the EEC make it impossible for such a Commissioner to be a Member of a national Parliament, because that person cannot take the oath of loyalty to the European Parliament and forget his British loyalties. My hon. Friend has got it the wrong way round.

Mr. Skinner: That is another aspect of study that I would have to develop if I were moving a writ in the Common Market. I shall never do that—it is just not my scene. It is worth while examining that point, and I shall do so after the debate. If that is true, it means that the Government are concerned more with Common Market rules than with the rules of Parliament. That is an interesting point. We have long argued that the Common


Market has laws which are over and above those in this country. If my hon. Friend is correct, we have discovered in that narrow area another reason why the Common Market can superimpose its views on what is commonly called the Mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Stern: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but the debate is moving so fast that I want to take him back to an important point that he made just before 11 o'clock. I should like to clarify this point because it is important in terms of how the subsequent debate develops. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that, if his motion to move the writ failed, it would not be possible to move the writ again this Session. Did he say that? I had intended, if I were fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later, to oppose the motion on the ground that it was premature. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, I shall have to attempt to persuade him instead to withdraw the motion rather than merely bring it to a vote. I should be grateful for clarification.

Mr. Skinner: This exercise has been one of testing opinion. I said at the beginning of my speech—I think that the hon. Gentleman has been here all the time—that writs are an aspect of parliamentary practice that are owned by the Front Benchers. Most hon. Members except for the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who moved 17 writs in two minutes—

Sir Peter Emery: It was 15 writs.

Mr. Skinner: Apart from the hon. Gentleman, most of us have never dealt with this aspect of parliamentary practice. This morning, apart from moving the writ, I was trying to gauge opinion. If I have tested the water correctly, I believe that some hon. Members have some reservations. But I am not sure yet. Obviously, we shall reach a point when the matter will pan out and we shall get a feeling as to whether it will be possible to carry the writ into practice. Make no mistake—I am not one of those people who would thwart the opportunities of the electors in Richmond, Yorks by being foolhardy and wanting to carry matters to the Nth degree. That is not my scene. Many hon. Members, including me, managed to pick up on the road this morning a few points on how writs are dealt with, what that is all about, whether it is satisfactory, whether we should add to the list of disqualified officers and whether some should be brought back. Those questions have emerged this morning—[Interruption.]

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that a dangerous aspect of the rules of the House is being disclosed? My hon. Friend has told us that he would not risk defeat of the motion, but perhaps not everyone would act as responsibly as my hon. Friend intends. I am extremely worried by the disclosure that, if the motion is defeated, it will fall for the rest of the Session. I strongly feel that this is the wrong time of year to embark on the Richmond, Yorks by-election. If I were faced—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mrs. Wise: My hon . friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is miserly in his willingness to give way to me, so I have to take the opportunity to intervene on the rare occasions he gives way. Will my hon. Friend examine the point which I have raised? I accept that he said that he will not press the motion to a vote, but he may change his

mind during the debate and those of us who want to oppose the motion could be left in an embarrassing position. If we oppose the motion now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. the hon. Lady should respect the practice and conventions of the House.

Mr. Skinner: I did not give way earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston because my attention was distracted by Bertie Wooster, who had just come in. I thought that he was going to come round with the Croft Original. The Minister for Trade is standing at the Bar. I was distracted when I saw him out of the corner of my eye. He is looking leisurely and I have no doubt that he is dressed for the occasion. He has Richmond clothes on—I shall rephrase that, he has Richmond Tory clothes on.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is a sportsman and doughty adversary whose qualities I have recognised for many years, but it is a bit off to criticise a Member when he is on the other side of the Bar and cannot answer back. I am in the Chamber, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows because he follows parliamentary affairs attentively, because I an answering for the Government in an Adjournment Debate at half-past two.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned less about Bertie Wooster, who has just come in, than about Mr. Mendis, who may be going out in less than 20 minutes. You have just taken the Chair, M r. Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House has been in and out of the Chamber several times in the past few minutes. You will not know that, earlier this morning, a number of us pressed the Leader of the House to make a statement on Mr. Mendis, who is due to be deported from Britain via Gatwick airport at 12 o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member has already rehearsed those points of order, I do not see the point of raising them again with me and so far I do not see any point of order for me.

Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was raising the matter to ask if, on your way to the Chair, you had received any information from the Leader of the House as to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What I have done on the way to the Chair is not a matter for debate in the House.

Mr. Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made a somewhat humorous attack on the Minister for Trade claiming that he is rather strangely dressed. But, whereas most of us have appeared in the Chamber today dressed in suits—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on.

Mr. Flannery: First let me thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and not only to me. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise): I think that my hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way, and I know that he will continue to be so.
I want to raise a point about which many people are concerned. We are learning today about Commissioners. Is it always the Prime Minister—who, as Prime Minister, has an office under the Crown; I know that the


Commissioner's job is not an office under the Crown—who alone has it in her gift to nominate a Commissioner? That does not seem a very democratic practice.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The question of how patronage is abused in the House of Commons, particularly by the Prime Minister of the day, would entail another five-hour debate. Many Opposition Members would argue that one of the things that a future Labour Government should do is get rid of much of that patronage and dwell more on the question of accountability.
My hon. Friend has spotted exactly what goes on. It all adds to the problems of the electorate and the Back Benchers, and I hope that it will be a consideration in the Richmond by-election. The question of being a Member of Parliament vis-a-vis being a commissioner is bound to crop up. The election may turn on it: who knows? This issue of patronage as opposed to accountability is very important, and there may in the end be a verdict on my hon. Friend's point. We shall never be able to decide exactly what amalgam of points decides elections, but one thing is certain: the question whether patronage is a good thing and should be allowed will be part and parcel of the issue in the elector's mind.

Mr. Flannery: Hitherto in by-elections the anger of the electorate has been clearly shown, sometimes to the detriment of Labour Members. It is characteristic of the electorate to record its anger in its vote. In Ashfield, for instance, a Labour majority of over 20,000 disappeared because the electorate was clearly angry that anyone should be given such a job and that one person should be able to say who should have it.

Mr. Skinner: There are many examples, but we do not want to get into an argument with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on grounds of repetition. Since I have been in Parliament there have been about six cases in which it could be said that one of the ingredients of by-election defeat has been the connection with the Common Market. The patronage issue is another element. I have no doubt that if, rather than being endowed by patronage, the job was obtained through some form of election, electors' views would be completely different. The point is that it is handed out on a plate by the Prime Minister of the day—and that also applies to Labour Members who are given jobs. Although recommendations can be made, at the end of the day it is the Prime Minister who hands out the jobs.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: All these constitutional points are interesting, but will my hon. Friend return to a question that he has been dodging all the morning—whether it is suitable to hold a by-election in Richmond in such inclement weather? Has my hon. Friend made any inquiries of North Yorkshire county council about its present policy on road gritting, and how much it has had to spend? My impression is that the council has cut back, and that on polling day, in late February or early March, road conditions could be very treacherous. Would it not be wiser to leave the by-election until April, when the weather may be better?

Mr. Skinner: I could spend a bit of time answering that question, but I must tell my hon. Friend—for he is my hon. Friend—that I cannot spend too much time on the weather at this stage.

Mr. Bennett: It is a crucial point.

Mr. Skinner: By-elections take place all the year round. We had one recently, and it could have snowed. The fact that there are people who say that we shall not have snow because of the breakdown of the ozone layer is neither here nor there. I cannot control the weather, and my hon. Friend must not ask me to control it. The Prime Minister might be able to help him, but I cannot sort that job out. All I can say is that by-elections have often taken place at this time of year.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I have come into the Chamber so recently, having been detained elsewhere.
My hon. Friend may not know that a council by-election was held in my constituency last night. On a very old register, there was a turn-out of 33 per cent. The SLD vote went down to 125, and there was a large swing to Labour. The people in Gillespie ward, where Jenny Sands was elected as a councillor, were determined to come out whatever the weather because they hate the Government so much. They wanted to show their support for Labour and they did.

Mr. Tony Banks: I want to bring my hon. Friend back to the question of why we need to move the writ today. I thought that we had established that it was possible under House of Commons rules for an EEC Commissioner to remain here as a Member of Parliament: we now understand that it is EEC rules that prevent that. No doubt the EEC will be rewriting "Erskine May" for us before long.
It seems wrong to me—I am sure that my hon. Friend will feel the same—for someone who has recently stood in a general election and offered himself to the electorate, as Leon Brittan did to the electors of Richmond, and who has then been returned, to leave that electorate, as it were, in the lurch. I feel that we should look at our rules again. When an hon. Member dies, as happened in the case of Pontypridd, the circumstances are simple and straightforward and we know exactly what we need to do. But once a Member of Parliament has entered into a contract with the electors, I think that he should fulfil that contract until the next general election.

Mr. Skinner: The situation is best summed up in this way. We have heard about four or five different inadequacies in the system for issuing writs, about disqualifying offices, and about the grey area of a link with the Common Market. Now that we have heard all those things, we must do something about them. We can talk all morning about why the Common Market should take precedence over the House of Commons. We could spend a lot of time and bore the Deputy Speaker. However, we must educate and organise ourselves. I refer to all the Committees in which the parliamentary Labour party and Conservative Members play a part, because some right hon. and hon. Government Members have been listening as well. We must use the evidence we have and make an imput into the Committees so that eventually, it gets through to the electoral law conference organised


intermittently by Mr. Speaker. In that way, changes will take place, there will be more accountability, and the Common Market mess will be cleared up.
This morning's discussion will enable us to take the evidence we have into the various byways and highways of parliamentary Committees of one kind or another—including all-party Committees, which are not my scene, but are for some right hon. and hon. Members—and strictly partisan parliamentary Committees, so that we may change the system. One can include other matters. One can introduce a procedural system to prevent people queue-jumping with Bills. That is important, but it is not what we are discussing this morning.
As I draw to a close the analytical part of my argument, I repeat that we must use the ammunition we have been given this morning. That is not to say that I want everybody to bury their heads in "Erskine May". Some right hon. and hon. Members will do that, while others will impart other information to the rest of us. That is the lesson to be learned this morning.

Mr. Morgan: This morning, we have heard a great deal about the by-election procedure. Five minutes ago, I thought that I was about to learn more about the physical structure of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was speaking, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) entered the Chamber and sat at the other end of the same Bench occupied by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who was seated at the other end. If that Bench were a see-saw, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill would have shot skywards and come down again, with snow on him. That might have required another by-election. We have learned that the structure of the Benches in this Chamber do not allow that to happen. That is one thing that we do not have to worry about.

Sir Cyril Smith: That was not up to the standard of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It was very poor. The hon. Member for Bolsover will have to give his hon. Friend lessons.

Mr. Skinner: The political see-saw was developed by the Conservative and Labour parties. Now the see-saw is occupied by the provos led by "Dr. Death", the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the SDP' at one end, and by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the SLD at the other. The occupants of the see-saw are different now. That will be a factor in the Richmond by-election, in which both occupants of that see-saw will be taking part. Right from the beginning, I knew there was something wrong between the Liberals and the SDP in the last general election, because the leaders of those two parties travelled on separate coaches on their visits up and down the country. The Richmond by-election will show that different considerations still apply.
I wish to make one further comment concerning the residual body, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent will be interested to learn that one of the disqualifying offices is the Registrar of Public Lending Right. I cannot for the life of me understand why that should be a disqualifying office. Perhaps there is a genuine reason, but it is odd that that should be a disqualifying office, whereas someone else can get a Commissioner's job in the Common Market for £97,000 a year.

Mr. Corbyn: Does it pay that much now?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it has just gone up. I make that point about disqualifying offices before moving on.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes the point that the by-election could be delayed. I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members will be as surprised as I was to learn that Sir Leon Brittan and others in his situation can claim both their salary as a Common Market Commissioner and their parliamentary salary. I know that my hon. Friend is opposed to both salaries being claimed. I understand why, and I agree with him. However, is there not a case to be made for allowing Sir Leon to remain a member of the House while taking up his new post as a Commissioner, and giving his parliamentary salary to a worthy cause—such as saving the Settle to Carlisle line, about which, as a former Member of the relevant constituency, he must be concerned.

Mr. Tony Banks: He could buy the Settle to Carlisle line.

Mr. Skinner: We have found out—we believe, the information is correct—that a Commissioner cannot be a Member of Parliament, not because of these rules, which should be changed, but because of Common Market rules under which a Commissioner has to swear an oath of allegiance. That is a matter that we should clear up. A person is apparently debarred by the rules of the Common Market, not by those of the House.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that and thank my hon. Friend for that education. He also said that Sir Leon Brittan will earn £97,000 per annum, and it would not be unreasonable for him to give half that salary to the campaign to save the Settle to Carlisle line.

Mr. Skinner: The Settle to Carlisle railway will be a consideration in this by-election and we cannot avoid mentioning it. I think that it does not actually run right through the constituency, although it may pass through it at one tiny point. My guess is that it runs along the western side of the constituency.
I would be straying from the subject if I started talking about the pros and cons of the Settle to Carlisle railway being saved. Other hon. Members might do so. I cannot visualise any set of circumstances in which this particular issue will not be foremost in the minds of the many electors because it is so close. There has been a resurgence of interest in that issue in Britain. Most certainly, it will be considered a matter of importance in that constituency.

Mr. Tredinnick: It has just been suggested that the Commissioner should give half his salary to the Settle to Carlisle campaign. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) cut off the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who, I thought, was about to suggest that he would give half his salary to that cause.

Mr. Skinner: What I am trying to do at all times is to ensure that we discuss the question of the writ in a way which the Chair regards as a proper fashion. The issue of the railway will be a factor but, although I am a supporter of saving it, I shall not make it a strong part of my consideration of the writ today.
Having dealt with disqualifying offices, I must make it abundantly clear that I am trying to move on to the constituency itself, and to describe what is a beautiful constituency.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that, over the years, some by-elections have been affected by dramatic Government action, taken because they thought that it might influence the by-election result. I seem to remember that the Humber bridge had some connection with a by-election. Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the date of the by-election could be significant in saving the Settle to Carlisle line? I am sure that the Government would not want to see its closure finally announced during the by-election.

Mr. Skinner: If we obtain the same result in this election as we did in Hull that time, we shall be clapping our hands and making dramatic changes.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I have listened to the preamble of my hon. Friend with great interest. Before he goes on to the main part of his speech I should like to turn briefly to the question of Lord Winstanley—I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is proper to refer to him by name. A Bill was introduced to rectify disqualifying action that he had taken during an election campaign. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on that because it may be of concern to me as a member of the same profession?

Mr. Skinner: We have trodden that ground, as regards the disqualifying officers. In 1974, after the first election, retrospective legislation was passed to ensure that Lord Winstanley, who represented Hazel Grove at that time, and held a disqualifying office as a member of a tribunal panel—as a doctor—was allowed to stay. The Labour Government at the time reached out to the Liberals and allowed the hon. Gentleman to keep his seat. I was dumbfounded, because we had brought the election and we were allowing this Liberal Member to keep his seat. I thought the election campaign had been all about keeping the Liberals out. The way in which this disqualification was removed to help the hon. Gentleman has been dealt with before.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that under the Standing Orders of the House, it would probably be inappropriate to move the closure, bearing in mind that the mover has not finished speaking. Perhaps you could confirm, however, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a number of other important issues are on the Order Paper, which should be debated. Mr. Speaker decided not to use his discretion in provoking the ten-minute rule but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has now been speaking for 144 minutes. That is a great intrusion on Private Members' time. It is not the hon. Gentleman's debate.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is now 12 o'clock and I believe that the House should be told whether Mr. Mendis has been deported from Gatwick to Sri Lanka, or whether he is being allowed to remain in this country, so that discussions can take place to find a third country—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I believe he recognises that this is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope you might be able to give guidance to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Abortion is a serious matter about which

many people feel strongly. Surely the House should have the option to decide on a free vote. This is an abuse—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Doubtless, he will have regard to the point that has just been made, but so far he has not tested my tolerance to the point of my ruling him out of order.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to return again to Mr. Viraj Mendis.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Corbyn: May I just explain my point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr. Corbyn: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been deeply and intimately involved in the problem for a long time, especially during the past 24 hours. I have visited Mr. Mendis in prison and I met the Minister concerned last night. We know that negotiations are going on throughout Europe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me what the point of order is for the Chair.

Mr. Corbyn: My point of order for the Chair is that the House received infomation earlier this week that the Government intended to deport Mr. Viraj Mendis. We know that there are negotiations going on with European Governments and others towards getting asylum applications considered and dealt with in order for them to be communicated to the Home Office. My point of order is that Mr. Viraj Mendis is on a plane, which has not yet taken off, and he is threatened with removal from this country. Will you ask a Minister to come to this House now and accept in good faith—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no power—nor has Mr Speaker—to instruct any Minister to make a statement. Doubtless the views expressed in the House will have been heard. If a request for a statement is received, the Chair will consider it in the usual way.

Mr. Corbyn: Have you received such a request?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the gist of what I said would have conveyed to the hon. Gentleman that I had received no such request.

Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I have your assurance that, if a Minister of State for the Home Department requests permission to make a statement, he will be allowed to do so? Negotiations have been going on all morning. Mr. Mendis is on the plane at the moment and it would be helpful if you could give us that assurance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If a Minister asks the Chair for permission to make a statement, the Chair will consider that request in the usual way.

Mr. David Alton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Further to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has said, I seek to press you on how we deal with procedures on Fridays when business


has been named for private Members' motions. After this morning's proceedings have been completed, will you give some consideration to the way in which we go about dealing with business, especially on those days when there is a motion on the Order Paper that has been balloted as No. 1? Effectively that motion has been gazumped by people queue-jumping by introducing a writ this morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is always anxious to protect private Members' time. If there are matters for concern arising out of today's proceedings, the hon. Gentleman might well consider making a submission to the Procedure Committee.

Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I make no comment on what has happened thus far this morning, which must be in order otherwise the Chair would have ruled otherwise. I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has said. There is important business ahead of us, which many Members have returned to the Chamber to hear. The issue is not just abortion, but procedure.
For a long time, the House has been denied the opportunity to reach any conclusion on procedure. The distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee returned from overseas to be present today. In the debate on 30 November, he said that the way in which procedure had been used with regard to abortion was the most worrying feature as it affected Members and that that had been made clear to the Procedure Committee.
What has emerged—I ask you to consider this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if not now, then later—is that a private Member's Bill that commands a majority in this House —[Interruption.]—all its predecessors have commanded a majority in this House and I would go further and say that there is evidence to suggest that they commanded majority support in the country—is being denied any effective progress because of the procedures that we follow, or rather the defects in those procedures.
This is a grave matter and it is particularly so because it touches upon the right of life. For that reason Mr. Deputy Speaker, even if you are unable to intervene now to permit discussion to take place at a reasonable hour on a private Member's day, I beg of you to give careful consideration to the whole matter together with Mr. Speaker so that this scandalous behaviour, which will outrage the country, is seen for what it is.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: . Order. The House will respect the fact that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is our most senior Member and Father of the House. I am sure that the House listened with respect to what he said, and, doubtless, Mr. Speaker will read his remarks in the fullness of time.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I listened carefully to what the Father of the House said, but I could not detect any part of his intervention that could be construed as a point of order. What he was seeking to do was to make the case that he would have made had there been a general debate on the matter. Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what has happened today is perfectly in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has not been out of order. He

has put his case simply and fairly and, I believe, in an agreeable manner to the House. He is operating the proper procedures of the House. The attempt to interfere with the proper procedures of the House came from some Conservative Members who should have known better. That is what is happening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—I should say my hon. Friend, but he should be a right hon. Member and, if it were in my power, I should appoint him, or he may be appointed after this—has shown himself to be in order for the two or three hours that he has been speaking, so he has every chance of being in order for the rest of his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should say to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that I extended to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) a tolerance that I believe that the House would expect me to show to the Father of the House and I know that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to support that. As I said earlier, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has not so far tested my tolerance to the point where I have had to say that his remarks are out of order. I share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover will now be allowed to resume his speech.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of my motion, which was drawn fairly first in the ballot, was to allow the House to decide whether it approved my motion or not, and I was therefore willing to respect and abide by the will of the House, but this dilatory motion is a deliberate attempt to thwart the will of the House and not to allow my motion. Is it fair—even if it is technically in order—for one hon. Member to speak for more than three hours?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The repeated points, of order only serve the very matter that the hon. Lady has criticised. The motion before the House is not technically a dilatory motion. I detected, I hope, that the hon. Member for Bolsover was about to enter his peroration and it may be as well for the House to listen to it.

Ms. Cordon: rose—

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Mr. Skinner: It may come as a surprise to some hon. Members who have raised points of order that I believe that one outcome of this morning's debate may be to draw the attention of the authorities of the House, especially all Back Benchers, to the need to ensure parliamentary time for all Back Benchers for all Bills, excluding queue-jumping Bills, and to allow them to proceed so that they can go on to the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has introduced a Bill six times on the subject of pensions and providing the proper wherewithal. I should like to see him get to the top of the list. I believe that the Procedure Committee, in line with what has been said, should examine the question thoroughly. As a Back Bencher, I want to say to all hon. Members that I want the Front Benchers to give the opportunity to enable us to introduce Bills and to bring them to the statute book in a way that gives everyone a chance, and the Government of the day should concede—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he is now opening the door to a different and much wider debate. We should get back to the motion that he is seeking to present to the House.

Mr. Skinner: I thought that it was important to make it clear that many of my hon. Friends would like nothing better than for the matter to be dealt with by the Procedure Committee so that all Bills may be given an opportunity.

Mr. Shersby: Perhaps, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who is the chairman of the Procedure Committee, I may help the hon. Gentleman. As a member of the Committee, I know that my hon. Friend listened carefully to the debate earlier and I have no doubt that what has been said this morning will form an urgent item on the agenda of the Procedure Committee. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I add to that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now having what I feared the hon. Gentleman was leading us into—a much wider debate than the matter before the House and a debate on procedure. We are not going to have a debate on procedure. Although we have had points of order on it, I repeat that we are not going to have a debate.

Mr. Skinner: I was merely saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and this arises from that part of the debate that has been points of order, that the issue behind those points of order should be dealt with. Most hon. Member appreciate that from time to time some of our antiquated procedures must be brought up to modern practice to enable all hon. Members—of all parties—to have equal opportunities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, if I allow him to continue his speech on that matter, in all equity I must allow other hon. Members to put counter points of view, and I am not prepared to do that. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will now get back on the road to Richmond.

Ms. Gordon: rose—

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: That is exactly what I am about to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply want to remind hon. Members that the Richmond, Yorks constituency is one of the biggest in Britain. A lot of work by all parties will be needed if we are to make sure that the election is properly carried out. The constituency covers about 950 sq miles: it is 50 miles across and 19 miles long. It is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the whole of Britain. I do not want to cause some of my hon. Friends—and other hon. Members—to get up and say that there are other constituencies just as beautiful.
Many issues will be raised upon which which the verdict will be cast—[interruption] and yes, the Settle-Carlisle railway line is one of them.

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Mr. Skinner: We shall also have to deal with the question of—

Mrs. Wise: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, I will give way, seeing as my hon. Friend is persisting.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is now concentrating on the beauty of the constituency. He has at least had the grace to admit the size of the area, but he has not come back to my earlier question of whether he has studied the issue of car ownership and accessibility in that constituency and the ability of women to get to the polls in the sort of weather that may well occur in the next few weeks. My hon. Friend has not dealt with my point at all. I am beginning to think that he is evading it.

Mr. Skinner: Well, as a matter of fact, I have tried to deal with that point several times. When writs are moved many rural constituencies in Britain have transport difficulties. I hope that when my hon. Friend gets an opportunity to travel from Preston to that constituency, across the Pennines, she will raise the question of the inadequacy of the roads, the need for concessionary bus passes and all the rest of it. The car-owning population there is less than the national average. We are dealing with a country constituency, not one in an urban area, which would have a tendency to higher car ownership, so that answers my hon. Friend's point.

Mrs. Wise: No, it does not. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but I do not thank him very much for his answer. Visiting that constituency during the election would be too late to meet the point because the election is being held at a time when it is hard for women to express their views through casting their votes.
The problem in this House on this and other matters may well be that there are not enough women Members of Parliament. There are far too many men here and women's considerations and needs are neglected. We have seen that happen often. Indeed, it happened last year in relation to a private Member's Bill that would have been defeated on Second Reading by 26 votes to 11 had the votes been cast only by women Members. I urge my hon. Friend to treat the needs of women in this election much more seriously. I challenge him to do that. It will be more difficult for women to get to the polls if the election is held in the next few weeks.

Mr. Skinner: That consideration has always been in my mind. That is way I said at the beginning—I think that my hon. Friend was listening—that I do not take a dogmatic view on this. If I thought that a sufficient number of hon. Members—especially among my hon. Friends—believed that the writ that is being applied for was not applicable for the time of the year, I might be persuaded. The last think I want to do is to enable it to be defeated. I can assure my hon. Friend, who has been very persuasive, of that. I reassure my hon. Friend—and others—that I shall not pursue that matter in the dogmatic fashion that she assumed. I agree with her about accessibility in the constituency and about the fact that women are affected more than men. There is no question about that and that is why I fleetingly referred to the issue of transport and concessionary fares, upon which the electors will give their verdict when the election finally goes ahead.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I should like to ask my hon. Friend about the relationship of the writ to the conclusion of the Settle-Carlisle railway issue. Many of my constituents have had an opportunity to travel on this railway and have


written to me about it. I have written to Ministers because this route is important. Ministers told me that they were still looking at the Settle-Carlisle railway issue and that we could expect an announcement at any time.
The writ and the railway are important to many of my constituents because everyone knows that this is a marvellous, scenic railway and that complex negotiations have taken place about it. Even now British Rail is looking at private finance to enable the railway to continue if the Government discontinue their funding. Everyone with an interest in transport policy, the environment and the future of small rural communities will be concerned about this writ in that it relates to the Settle-Carlisle railway.

Ms. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For 20 minutes I have been trying to ask the House to hold one minute's silence to mark the passing of the cherished tradition of tolerance in the field of human rights and the impact that that could have on any information about a human being whose life might be in danger.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are many occasions on which I wish I had the power to command a minute's silence from the House.

Mr. Skinner: I fully understand your response, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have to agree with my hon. Friend. It was a moving intervention in terms of the earlier points of order.
There is a rumour going about which may prove to be correct—who knows?—that the announcement about saving the Settle-Carlisle railway will probably occur about the first week of the election campaign proper. That will pose a dilemma for those of us who want to save it, but naturally, we shall support the saving of the railway. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) who has played a role in this affair will clap his hands. The Government, having gauged the feeling in that constituency and the views of many of the electors about the railway issue, may well make that announcement. I thought for a minute that the Leader of the House was about to rise to his feet and make the announcement there and then, but he has not.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Skinner: I will, but I am trying to finish.

Mr. Livingstone: I do not want to disrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but may I assure him that I visited the constituency about three years ago? I spent the period between Christmas and the new year in the village of Arkengarthdale and I assure my hon. Friend that he is right when he says that this is one of the most beautiful constituencies in Britain. It narrowly falls short of the conditions in Brent, East, but it is a stunning area. For these islands, it is also at a high altitude. I was forcefully struck by the cold there between Christmas and the new year three years ago. I took many walks through fields and took a trip to what I think is the highest public house in the British Isles.
The weather was bitterly cold and in many areas there were several inches of ice, and, shortly after I left, the people that I had stayed with were snowed in. I am worried about a by-election being held in this constituency at a time when many people might be denied the opportunity to participate in the electoral process because of a heavy

fall of snow and extremely inclement weather. Has my hon. Friend consulted the meteorological office about weather in the constituency during the by-election? Almost uniquely in this constituency, because of the elevation of many parts of it, the question of weather is more important than anywhere else.

Mr. Skinner: One or two hon. Members are now expressing that point of view. It started off this morning as a little peep from someone and it has now become a great issue.
Although my hon. Friend has tramped all over that constituency and been to that pub at the top where the milk race is held, I should point out to him that many Opposition Members are from Scotland. Those hardy people would resent the fact that a by-election would not be held in the north of England at that time of year when, in Scotland, they have had to put up with by-elections in the bleak mid-winter on many occasions. It is all a question of balance. As my hon. Friend is a man who is prepared—I was going to say "to compromise"—to consider the question as to when a writ should be moved, he will know that we have to take account of the weather, the new register and everything else. As we are considering this from the point of view of balance and not dogma, I shall take into account my hon. Friend's comments. However, I cannot be firm simply because he and other hon. Members have got cold feet about the weather.

Mr. Tony Banks: My point relates to weather in so far as we receive information in the House about the circumstances that govern our consideration of whether a writ should be issued. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the dangers of supersedeas writs. "Erskine May" states:
If doubts should arise concerning the fact of the vacancy, the order for a new writ should be deferred until the House may be in possession of more certain information; and if, after the issue of the writ, it should be discovered that the House had acted upon false intelligence"—
that could refer to the weather vanes—
the Speaker will be ordered to issue a warrant for a supersedeas to the writ.
My hon. Friend should be aware that some of the questions asked by Opposition Members could have implications with regard to false intelligence being offered to the House. However, I assure my hon. Friend that that passage mostly refers to the question whether a Member is dead. It says:
Thus on 29 April 1765, a new writ was ordered for Devizes, in the room of Mr. Wiley, deceased. On 30 April it was doubted whether he was dead, and the messenger of the great seal was ordered to forbear delivering the writ until
further directions. Mr. Willey proved to be alive, and on 6 May a supersedeas to the writ was ordered to be made out.
It is difficult to know whether some Conservative Members are alive or dead, but I simply wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention to some of the dangers in the procedure that he is adopting.

Mr. Skinner: I believe that page 29 of "Erskine May" refers to superseders. I think it is a bit dodgy. I do not believe that "Erskine May" has dealt with the matter thoroughly in present-day terms because the provisions regarding the death of a Member were drawn up long before the days of medical evidence regarding clinical death. What with spongiform and all the rest of it, "Erskine May" should be brought more up-to-date. There should be a provision to ensure that we refer to people as clinically dead because that is a grey area in this place and


could be open to challenge. As my hon. Friend knows, the last thing we want to do is to call upon Mr. Speaker, who has power under the mental health legislation to declare that someone is dead, when, under the new definition, he or she might not be clinically dead. Here we are again. We have now discovered another possible area where "Erskine May" may have to be brought up to date.

Mr. Corbyn: I am rather disturbed to hear that Mr. Speaker has powers under the mental health legislation. Perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm that. However, he has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) about the weather.
My brother is an expert on weather forecasting and long-range weather patterns. He confirms that in February we are in for a very cold spell, not just in London and the south which normally is frightened by such weather, but in the rest of the country as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should consult my brother and the meteorological office about this serious matter. If my hon. Friend's motion is successful, that weather would occur when the by-election takes place. That cold weather and resultant snowing-in could disenfranchise people and deny them their democratic right to decide who should represent them in the House.

Mr. Skinner: There are experts and there are experts. I have heard about the advice from weather experts in the past. I used to pay some passing allegiance to one or two of them who used to appear on BBC television. However, after that hurricane in October 1987, I do not pay all that much attention to John Kettley and all the rest. That hurricane was around the corner and they did not spot it. I will not accept that there is someone in the land of great eminence who can somehow forecast what the weather will be on Scargill high moor overlooking Richmond, Yorks constituency after the new registers on 15 February. I am just not prepared to accept that notion. Therefore, we have to decide this issue not on the basis of weather forecasts.

Mr. Corbyn: What is wrong with science?

Mr. Skinner: We have to examine this on the basis of whether we believe it is right to have the election for other considerations. If we always doubted things like the weather, as Socialists we would never make any ground at all. We must think about those things that are logically correct as scientiific Socialists.

Mrs. Fyfe: I want to reassure my hon. Friend about the feelings of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. While it is generally true that the weather in Scotland is more severe than it is in England, and that is demonstrated to us every week when we come down to London, which is considerably warmer than Scotland, nevertheless certain parts of England, for example, the Pennines, have more severe weather in winter than anywhere in Scotland. Scotland is wetter, but it cannot match the snowfalls and snowdrifts which might lie for several days and which might snow-in communities in England. Even when the road from Cockbridge to Tomintoul is open, the Pennines are snowed in.

Mr. Holt: That is nowhere near the Pennines, you stupid woman.

Ms. Abbott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) as a "stupid woman"? Is that parliamentary language?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In all the hubbub and noise, I find it difficult to hear anything. I certainly did not hear that remark.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Holt: I could not possibly call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) an intelligent woman.

Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh has just compounded the insult by saying that he could not possibly refer to my hon. Friend as an intelligent woman. Everyone heard that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was grossly discourteous, but I do not think that it is of such an order that I would feel obliged to compel the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Skinner: I was briefly referring to the fact that there are one or two verdicts on different issues which must apply in the by-election when it is held. There will be the dichotomy between those who favour bailing out the farmers over salmonella in Richmond—and there are plenty of those—as opposed to not bailing out pensioners after Barlow Clowes. There will be the big issue of farming generally. Green issues will undoubtedly be played out at length. I expect the election to be exceptionally exciting because it will cover such a large number of areas which form the basis of any decent electoral contest. I know that the odds are stacked against us. It has always been a Tory seat. It was not even opposed in the war years. We can appreciate what kind of constituency it is, but that should not deter those of us who will help to raise issues and provide a verdict on behalf of our candidate Frank Dobson—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Frank Robson, who increased his percentage of the vote by 35 per cent. in the 1987 election.
There are some wonderful rivers there. I expect The Independent political correspondent to go up there and look at the rivers. I shall give him a few names, as the Government might form river companies. There is the Swayle, the Ure, the Greta, the Blackbeck, and so on. There will be an interesting story there. People will find out not only that the Settle to Carlisle railway is to the western edge, but that a wonderful part of the line stretches from London to Scotland. The railway record was set in the constituency by the Mallard engine. All those issues will be important. There will be questions about roads, hospitals and—

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Skinner: No, I must conclude.

Mr. Corbyn: On the question about the—

Mr. Skinner: No, I must finish.
The election will be fought on the question about the protection of the countryside. Market forces will obviously be played to our advantage. We cannot pay service men at Catterick camp and RAF men at Leeming Bar on the basis of market forces, nor can we sustain farmers and people who work on the land if we apply strict market forces. I


drop a few hints in that direction. There will be verdicts on house building, the need for local authorities to build old people's homes instead of building being done by the private sector. No doubt student loans will be part of the constituency's verdict. The plight of pensioners will be raised and how they compare miserably with other pensioners in the Common Market. No doubt there will be reference to why Ministers tell them to go to jumble sales to buy their clothes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer should go there. If the writ is accepted, instead of being in purdah between now and 14 March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should pay a long visit to the constituency. He should take note of all the considerations to which I have referred and all the issues that will undoubtedly crop up. Irrespective of the result, the verdict of the people will come down heavily in favour of providing services for the people, social services and better pensions, in favour of and helping those with mortgages, instead of pursuing the high interest rate policy. Instead of spending a few weeks alone, if he does that, he will find out how people in that constituency—that microcosm of north Yorkshire—feel about the issues.
I offer that challenge to the Chancellor. It will be worthwhile. As Back Benchers, Opposition Members have managed to find out something about writs that we were never able to gauge before the debate took place. With those few words, I hope the debate has been helpful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please bring his motion to the Chair?

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I do not wish to pursue the political arguments that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made in his peroration because this is simply about the principle whether the writ should be moved for the constituency of Richmond, Yorks. I have no wish to delay the House unduly, but wish to concentrate on that issue.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has today chosen to move the writ for the constituency which has been vacated by my right hon. and learned Friend, now Sir Leon Brittan. If I can catch the hon. Gentleman's eye and attention for a moment, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back 12 years when his then right hon. Friend, now Lord Jenkins of Hillhead who sits in the other place, was appointed President of the European Commission in about July 1976.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the right hon. Gentleman took up that post at the beginning of January 1977 and he may recall that no writ was moved for the subsequent by-election in Stechford for several months. It surprises me that the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure would not have wished to see the people of Stechford unpresented for so long—he might have argued, although I would not, that they had been unrepresented for many years before that—did not move the writ for Stechford.
The moving of that writ was delayed and delayed because the Government of the day thought that the position could only get better. If hon. Members recall the state of the economy in 1976–77 and the International Monetary Fund stepping in to take over the Treasury, they will find it hardly surprising that the Government felt that the position could get no worse politically and that perhaps it could get better. As a result, they delayed through January and February until eventually well into

March they moved the writ and the by-election took place on 31 March—three full months after the right hon. Gentleman, now Lord Jenkins, had taken up the post as President of the European Commission.
The hon. Gentleman will recall clearly that the Budget took place in the week preceding the by-election. I recall sitting in the Washwood Heath Conservative Club with the press in some fear—as we appeared to be winning the by-election—that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, would pull a few rabbits out of the hat and we would see that lead disappear. While I listened to that Budget broadcast, the journalist next to me turned and shook my hand, saying, "You're the next Member for Stechford after that Budget. It is deeply unpopular and there is no way that the people of Stechford will vote for the Labour candidate." That Labour candidate is now the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis).
What we and perhaps even the hon. Member for Bolsover did not know at that time—he can correct me if I am wrong—was that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was not in control of the Treasury. It was being run by the IMF. Even if he had wanted to help the Labour candidate retain Stechford, he could not have done so because matters were beyond his control.
There was a second reason why the people of Stechford did not vote in sufficient numbers for the Labour candidate. It had nothing to do with him but was because they felt that they had been disfranchised for a long time, and they resented that their Member of Parliament, who had not been the most assiduous attender in the constituency of Stechford since it was formed in 1950, had gone to Brussels and his party had not seen fit to move the writ. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bolsover is a reformed character and now believes that writs should be moved more quickly, especially those involving European Commissioners.
The hon. Member for Bolsover said that he was seeking opinions. Like me, he is aware that, if the motion is defeated, another motion cannot be moved for three months, which would as unfairly disfranchise the people of Richmond, Yorks as the Labour party unfairly disfranchised the people of Stechford in 1977. I hope that, in the light of my comments and those of other hon. Members—some of whom have intervened and others of whom will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman will decide that a majority in the House oppose the motion and that he will withdraw it.
There are three reasons why the writ should not he moved. One is the new register, to which the hon. Member for Bolsover referred. He acknowledged, rightly, that it would be undemocratic to follow the old register because a large number of people who now live in Richmond, Yorks would be disfranchised. I think that most hon. Members would agree that we should follow the new register. It will not be published until next month and must be checked, so we will not be able to work off it until the end of February. I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover agrees that all candidates in the campaign would want the new register to be confirmed from the campaign's outset so that they could canvass and issue leaflets throughout the election, knowing full well they were targeting the existing residents of the constituency. I submit that there is no need to move the writ in the middle of January, because the by-election should take place on the basis of the new register. The convention is that


campaigns may take place over a three-week period, so it would seem more appropriate for the writ to be moved next month, with the by-election being in early March.

Ms. Abbott: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about a serious matter—when the by-election in Richmond, Yorks will be held and who will represent the residents, possibly for many years to come. It is appalling for the hon. Gentleman to say that the matter should be decided on the mere technicality of the state of the register. That shows a lack of seriousness about the political issues. We should not have regard to technicalities, the register, number crunching and procedure. We should decide the date of the by-election on the serious political issues and other issues, such as the weather—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Lady was making an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. MacKay: The only point on which I can agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) is that William Hague will represent Richmond, Yorks for many years to come. I am sad that the hon. Lady disagrees with the hon. Member for Bolsover and other Labour Members who, in earlier interventions, made it clear that they thought that the register was important. It cannot be right that people are unable to vote. It is important in our democracy that we encourage as many people as possible to vote in elections. The easiest way to do that is to ensure that the register is kept up-to-date. If it is a matter of the constituency of Richmond, Yorks, or any other consitituency, being unrepresented for a few weeks before a new register is available, I think that most hon. Members would willingly agree to wait.

Mrs. Wise: We would not all agree with my hon. Friend, although I normally agree with her. Number-crunching is precisely what elections are about: that is the essence of them. I feel that it would be improper for the House to try to decide by-election dates on judgment of the issues. The priority ought to be the interests of the electors, in which context the new register is an important consideration.

Mr. MacKay: It is unusual for the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) to come to my support, but I hope that this is the first of many such occasions.

Mr. Cohen: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the use of the new register, and I agree that it is best to use it so that the majority of people have an opportunity to vote. But his remarks were somewhat hollow, coming from someone who supports the poll tax, which will take many people off the register—perhaps not in Richmond, but later on. They will then lose the right to vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the by-election in Richmond that we are debating.

Mr. MacKay: I am tempted to answer back, because I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman's bogus point, but I shall not do so because I would be out of order. There will be other occasions on which to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the community charge will have no adverse effect whatever on the register.
The hon. Member for Bolsover has mocked many of his colleagues who have talked about the weather. He was particularly unfair when responding to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), He said that there would be no problem: if by-elections in Scotland were held in the winter, why should they not be held in the winter in other constituencies?
This is the second reason why I should like the hon. Gentleman to think again. There is, I think, a subtle difference between rural and urban constituencies. Let us say for the sake of argument that there is a massive snowfall in Govan, where the hon. Gentleman's party had such a disastrous result in the most recent by-election. In the event of such a snowfall in the centre of a large city, I think that the majority of people would still be able to go to the polls. It would be different in a rural constituency area—of massive dimensions, as the hon. Member for Bolsover and others have mentioned today.
An election on a very snowy day in Richmond would be a complete mockery. I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and other Opposition Members who have said that it would be wrong to hold a Richmond by-election at a time when it is likely to be very snowy and many people will be unable to go to the polls.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacKay: I will, because I know my hon. Friend's experience of the area.

Mr. Holt: As the Member of Parliament present who lives closest to the constituency—and bordering on the north side—let me take the argument to its logical conclusion. We had snow in November, and we frequently have snow in May. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the only time at which a by-election is possible is in August?

Mr. MacKay: I do not wish to become involved in an argument about the depth of the snow, although I suspect that in the peripheral of months of May and November it is quite light. All that concerns the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and myself is the possibility of a snowstorm that would close the roads and stop people from going to the polls. I suspect that that is likely to happen in February and early March, which is why I am encouraging the hon. Member for Bolsover to consider not moving the writ until a by-election can take place in late March or early April.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said earlier was absolute nonsense? It is terribly important that the by-election should be on the new register, especially in view of the substantial number of service men who live in Richmond and presumably vote there. Service men are particularly mobile, and a register 18 months out of date would disfranchise many of those in Richmond.

Mr. MacKay: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover will take particular note of what my hon. Friend has said, as he has a large service vote and understands the way in which the service vote moves around the country, so that the service men can easily be disfranchised. I suspect that in the light of the intervention from her hon.


Friend the Member for Preston the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington will reconsider what she said earlier.
My final reason for believing that the writ should not be moved is my view that conventions, if they work well, need not be changed. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover is no reactionary and considers himself a radical Member of the House, but the convention of the party that has held the seat moving the writ seems to have worked tolerably well for a long time. The hon. Gentleman quoted "Erskine May", and it was clear that it is the norm for the party holding the seat to move the writ, although it is perfectly in order for any other hon. Member to move it. That, of course, is why we are having today's debate. That convention has served the hon. Gentleman's party and the minority parties perfectly well. To break it will set an unfortunate precedent that will hurt right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
As I said at the outset, it is not my intention to delay the House and to prevent others from speaking. However, I again ask the hon. Member for Bolsover to consider carefully my remarks and the interventions both from the Opposition and Government Benches. When the time comes to decide whether to press his motion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are against the writ being moved now. There is clearly also an overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members who do not want to' see a vote that will lead to the disfranchisement of the people of Richmond for at least three months.

Mr. Leigh: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A number of right hon. and hon. Members still wish to catch my eye, and I believe that the House wishes to hear their views.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I respect your judgment, but the debate has continued for three and one-half hours. Those who wish to frustrate the right of a hon. Member whose motion has come first in the ballot—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is dangerously near to challenging my ruling. I know that he will not persist. I call Mrs. Audrey Wise.

Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to your earlier ruling, when you referrred the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, who is now in the Chamber. I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Select Committee made several recommendations to curb abuses of the kind that is now occurring. The House has not yet been given an opportunity to debate those recommendations. The House has debated the writ for three and one-half hours. Will there be an opportunity to reach the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), which came top in the ballot? Many people throughout the country will be disappointed that their elected representatives are unable to debate a subject on which there is such strong feeling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whatever may be the Select Committee's recommendations, it is not for me to

anticipate the view of the House on those recommendations. I cannot be seen to pre-empt the House in that way. As to the hon. Gentleman's request for an assurance that his hon. Friend's motion will be reached, clearly I cannot predict the course of events. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned to make progress it will help if right hon. and hon. Members do not persist in raising points of order.

Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I join the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in making a plea to you that the matter will be expeditiously placed before the Select Committee on Procedure. Many people in the country, learning of these proceedings—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch my earlier ruling. I advised that if he is sufficiently concerned about today's events, he should consider making a submission to the Select Committee on Procedure himself, rather than have me do so on his behalf.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I heard your earlier ruling, but I wish to press you on this point. Although I am prepared to make representations to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, who is in his place, I hope that the Chair will ponder on what has occurred today. It is not right hon. and hon. Members who must be satisfied about the way in which we conduct ourselves, but the general public—who may come to believe that our proceedings are a circus, and that we make a travesty of democracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker will be in the Chair for the latter part of today's proceedings. In any case, I know that he will study carefully the record of today's proceedings. I am certain also that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure will note what has been said.

Mr. Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that your ruling was based on the number of hon. Members who were rising. On other similar occasions during my few years in the House Mr. Speaker has made his rulings according to whether he considers that the issue has been sufficiently debated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman did not listen with sufficient care to what I said. I said that a number of hon. Members were rising and furthermore that I thought that the House would wish to hear other voices before reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Procedure Committee myself, I have learnt a great deal about the inadequacy of our procedures by sitting through today's proceedings. The debate has certainly not been wasted on me. I would ask you, Sir, to remind hon. Members that they should not refer to the moving of a writ as an abuse or a dilatory motion. It is a matter of privilege, which is why it has precedence over the other business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said earlier that it was not a dilatory motion.

Mr. Flannery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It ill-becomes hon. Members who have


tried to jump the queue and to stop other hon. Members' Bills coming in their proper order to try to stifle democracy by stopping us speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is opening the door to a much wider debate, and to a debate different from that which we ought to be having.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to when we might put the closure motion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware by now that the Chair never does that. It would be quite improper for the chair to seek to give an indication of when it might be wise or unwise for an hon. Member to move the closure. The Chair has to judge the matter when it arises and in the light of the circumstances.

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have held back from making this point of order because I was hoping that we would eventually move on to discuss my motion. At least half a dozen allegations of queue-jumping have been made. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Correct allegations."] Whatever else the motion was intended to achieve, it was not intended to achieve that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Miss Widdecombe: If hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when I am on my feet. I am sure that she will understand straight away from the response to what she has already said the difficulties to which she is exposing the Chair. If hon. Members make provocative statements in the guise of point of order, the Chair feels that it is under a heavy obligation to allow others to put a contrary point of view, which takes us into a very different debate. I think that we should return to the writ for the Richmond by-election.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members complain that we are not moving with sufficient haste towards other matters that are down for debate, they are not strengthening their case by persistently raising points of order, some of which have very little substance.

Miss Widdecombe: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am persisting because the allegation of queue jumping has been made and it reflects on me. That is why I seek the leave of the House briefly to explain why, in my view those allegations are not substantiated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Lady that that is exactly what she cannot do. I think that I have shown her a fair amount of tolerance by allowing her to refute the point and I hope that she will not persist. As I have already said to her, if I allowed her to make the statement that she seeks to make I should have no option but to allow other hon. Members to put a contrary view. I hope that we can get on with the debate.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will agree that during the past three and half hours we have had a substantial debate on the question of the writ. In seeking to hear the different voices will you, Sir, rule hon. Members out of order if they repeat time and time again points that have already been made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members will be aware that repetitiveness is a ground of reproach from the Chair, but I have not so far detected repetitiveness to the point at which such reproach would be justified.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Normally I would consider that a by-election should be called as quickly as possible after the occurrence of the vacancy. As a general principle, we want people to be unrepresented for as short a time as possible. The keen interest which has been shown in this debate illustrates that I am not alone in my anxiety that it should be dealt with carefully. Generally speaking, the calling of a writ is not dealt with with sufficient seriousness by Back Benchers, nor is there sufficient participation by Back Benchers, who can represent the interest of electors at large. It is too commonly thought to be a routine matter which should be left entirely to those on the Front Benches. That is not a view that I hold. Incidentally, I would draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that an extraordinarily large number of private Members have participated in today's proceedings. Those who apparently seek to defend the interests of private Members are ignoring the fact that many private Members on both sides have spoken on this procedural motion. This is an odd Friday, because all the business before us is procedural. Some Members, however, seek to give preference to one procedural motion over another, but that can be no more than an expression of their opinions.

Mr. Michael Brown: The only reason that I am here today is that I optimistically hoped that we would reach motion No. 2 on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), because his motion refers to South Yorkshire and Humberside, in which my constituency is situated.

Mrs. Wise: The hon. Gentleman is optimistic, but I believe it will have done him no harm to be present in the House on a Friday. I am not averse to the idea that private Members should from time to time be present on a Friday even if, as I do, they represent provincial constituencies. It is a day when the private Members have the Floor and we should take advantage of that.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: As a Back Bencher on the Government side, I took part in a ballot to secure an opportunity to bring forward our problems in South Yorkshire. I believed that I would have an opportunity of discussing those problems. If I was my usual self, I would say that the House has spent a long time on motion No. I. I believe that there are other subjects that are of interest to my constituents—as well as to the country—which should be debated.

Mrs. Wise: Of course, there are many other subjects. However, we are not dealing with other subjects, we are dealing with the business in front of the House. Although


hon. Members may wish to press their constituency interests before the procedural needs of the House and the country, they are not entitled to any special consideration.
I shall now return to the narrow matter on which I started. As a general principle, I am in favour of by-elections being held quickly. Sir Leon Brittan, who has vacated the seat at Richmond, would have done his electors a favour if he had made his decision earlier. If he had done so, we could have had this election back in October and none of us would have needed to get to our feet today—or had the right to do so. If hon. Members wish to complain, they should complain to Sir Leon Brittan, who has placed the House and his former constituents in an invidious position.
A lot of comments have been made about the procedures of the House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done the House a favour in exposing certain peculiarities which I did not know existed, and of which, certainly, the people of this country are unaware. It is a matter of considerable interest, for example, that European Community rules and not rules of the House provoked the by-election.
We should consider carefully the list of disqualifying offices. One of the oddities that baffles the public is the procedure for applying for Northstead or whatever it is—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Manor of Northstead."] I am back in the days of the Chiltern Hundreds, which was hard enough to comprehend. Once the Chiltern Hundreds was left, I and most of the population were left behind. The House has a duty to ensure that the list of disqualifying offices and the procedures whereby Members of Parliament can resign from the House should be made much clearer.

Mr. Couchman: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be interested to know that on my second day in this House after being elected in June 1983 I was urgently summoned by the Deputy Chief Whip. I thought that it was a bit early to be in trouble with him, but he had read that I was the chairman of a health authority, which had appeared in the small biographical details published in The Times on the Saturday after a general election. There was great concern that I was still chairman of that health authority and, therefore, disbarred from taking my seat.
I was able to assure the Deputy Chief Whip that I had resigned in time, and had been perfectly entitled to stand as candidate for election and take my seat in the House. Due to a slip-up by The Times, it had failed to note that I had resigned from that position. It was only by luck that I knew that I had to do so to take a seat in this place. I agree with the hon. Lady that the list of disqualifying offices should be made more public and comprehensive. People who hold such positions should understand that they may not take a seat in this House.

Mrs. Wise: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recounting his experience, and he is right. I hope that this matter will be considered closely by the House because it is important. It would have been extremely embarrassing for the Conservative party if the hon. Gentleman had not discovered—by luck—that he had to resign from the health authority. He may have had a short life in this House. I would not have regretted that, but I am sure that he and his colleagues would have done. If we allow such important matters to be decided by luck, it demonstrates the careless way in which we conduct our procedures.
We must use our prerogative as Back Benchers to intervene in this matter rather than leaving it to the Front Bench spokesmen. We must decide as objectively as possible the proper way in which to proceed. We must also consider the interests of the electorate in the most careful and objective way possible. For that reason I am departing from my normal view that speed is the overriding factor in by-elections.
I believe that in the constituency of Richmond, Yorks there are people whose interests would be disadvantaged by an early election—the female electorate. I tried to make that point in earlier interventions, but, I fear, without much success. It is difficult for this House to consider women's interests because the vast majority of hon. Members—through no fault of their own—are men. They must try to overcome that disadvantage and look at matters through our eyes now and again. If I were an ordinary voter in Richmond, I have no doubt that I would be extremely keen that an election should be held quickly, but I would also be keen to ensure that that election would take place at a time when its conduct and the weather conditions would be as conducive as possible to political discussions.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Lady is making the point about women representing Richmond. I can tell her that I understand that the Social and Liberal Democrats have selected a female candidate. The only problem for them is that she appears on the electoral register in my constituency. If the writ is issued, the SLD will say that it has the local candidate who lives in the constituency whereas she is actually on the new electoral register in my constituency and lives about two miles from me.

Mrs. Wise: Obviously, that is not a matter for me to comment on, but one to be sorted out in the hurly-burly of the election when it comes. I would not like to be misinterpreted in my remarks because I am not seeking to favour one candidate over another, even though one of them happens to be a women. I believe that the disadvantages attached to being an SLD candidate outweigh even the advantage of being a women candidate. My concern is for women in general in the constituency and the attitude that the House shows to women. Many hon. Members get up and say what women should do, how they should behave and how they should be represented, yet they do not take into account even the views expressed by the majority of women in the House. I have taken grave exception—although I have been careful not to rise to the bait—to the accusations that we are engaging in scandalous conduct. We are seeking this morning to protect the interests of women voters and we shall have the support of women voters in Richmond and elsewhere in our attempt to do that.
The right for Back Benchers to intervene on the matter of whether a writ should be moved should be regarded as a precious right. There could be many occasions when there was collusion among Front Benchers that needed to be challenged by Back Benchers. I believe in the rights of Back Benchers, but I do not believe that those rights are expressed only, or even best, by considering who has won the raffle on a particular occasion. There are other rights and procedures, such as the one being invoked today, that are equally a part of Back Benchers' rights.
I have endeavoured to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he would be wrong to pursue


the matter to a vote. I understand his feeling that there may be political advantage for us in having an early election, but I urge him to reconsider even that point because it could be held that the longer the campaign goes on and the longer there can be heightened interest in the constituency and the country at large, the better it will be for us because in the next few weeks, there will be more disclosures about electricity and water such as the interesting disclosures we have heard in the past week. However, that should not be our main consideration. Hon. Members on both sides may bring forward points of political advantage. We should be considering what will be helpful to the people of Richmond. The weather, the difficulties of transport in a rural area, the age of people on the voting register, the difficulty in ensuring that people have had a proper opportunity for postal votes, the problems not only of women but of elderly people and the fact that in a rural area people without cars are highly disadvantaged should lead my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to withdraw his motion. I hope that he will do so and although I hope that he will not take us into the Lobby, in asking him to withdraw his motion I congratulate him on ensuring that extremely important and interesting issues that are not usually aired have been disclosed to us this morning.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): We are dealing with the motion for the granting of a writ for the Richmond, Yorks by-election. It is clear that extensive comment, directed solely to the character and career of Sir Leon Brittan would not be in order. I shall therefore confine myself to saying that the electors of Richmond—

Mr. Dalyell: I know that that is the Chair's view, but may I ask by what reference we cannot consider the career and credentials of Sir Leon Brittan? I am willing to believe that that is so, but where is the reference?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has considered the career and credentials of my former right hon. Friend Sir Leon Brittan, but this is not the place to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman—with all the authority of his great office speaking from the Dispatch Box—that we cannot consider the background of Sir Leon Brittan? I am simply asking by what authority the House of Commons, in discussing a writ, cannot consider an aspect of the background of Sir Leon Brittan and, especially, why certain things should not be brought before a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 before we agree to do anything.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I am also entitled to mine. I do not believe that this motion is suitable for this occasion. However, whether or not the motion is suitable for the occasion and whether or not the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise matters under it will be a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should the hon. Gentleman catch your eye and seek to widen the debate in that fashion. I shall content myself by saying that

the electors of Richmond have been fortunate. For the past 14 years they have been represented by a most distinguished Member of this House. His long career on the Front Bench, both in Opposition and in Government, never prevented him from taking an assiduous interest in his constituents and working effectively on their behalf. We wish him and his colleague, the other new British Commissioner in the European Community, Mr. Bruce Millan, well in their new roles.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On too many occasions by-elections are caused by deaths, over which no one has any control at the time, but on this occasion the by-election is caused by resignation. Surely Sir Leon Brittan should have taken into account the problems that would be faced by electors in his constituency. By staying on until Christmas he has left them with the prospect either of a by-election in some of the most difficult weather that we are likely to experience or of being unrepresented until April or May.

Mr. Wakeham: I have absolutely no doubt that my friend Sir Leon Brittan considered carefully all the issues facing him when he was offered his new job and had to decide the best course of action and the best way in which he could be of service to his country and to his constituents. He decided—rightly, I believe—to accept the important position that he now holds in Brussels and in which he will do an excellent job.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: No, I have said enough on that subject. I have another reference to the hon. Gentleman. If he will allow me, I will come to that in a moment.
It would be churlish, on whatever side of the argument one is, not to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on his feat in moving the motion earlier today. It was a parliamentary occasion of particular significance and I am bound to say that it was very good. It reminded me of the last time I sat through an occasion of similar significance. It was when I was first elected to this House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) addressed the House for about four and a half hours on something about which he felt strongly. I did not rise higher than the position of glass carrier on that occasion. The hon. Member for Bolsover has achieved about 66 per cent. of the record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. On that basis, I reckon that some time during the next 20 years or so he will be a serious candidate for the role of father of the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: I would not want my right hon. Friend to be inaccurate. I spoke for three hours and 16 minutes and was told at the time that that was the longest speech by a Back-Bench Member since 1828. It has since been surpassed. The point to be made—I should prefer my right hon. Friend make it rather than me—is that I was fighting for the safety of my constituents, a one-man battle on behalf of one constituency. The government of the day, a Labour Government, listened and set up an inquiry of a kind which led step by step to the greater safety of my constituents. There was a purpose in what I did.

Mr. Wakeham: I fully accept what my right hon. Friend says. For many years I represented a part of Essex that he had represented before me for 25 years. Even when the


boundaries changed and I moved to a different part of Essex slightly north of where I had been before, more people still thought that he was the Member of Parliament for the constituency that I had represented for 10 years than recognised that I had come and gone from the area. My right hon. Friend is distinguished in many fields, but no Member for Parliament—

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend give way.

Mr. Wakeham: I give way to nobody when I am paying a tribute to my right hon. Friend the father of the House. My right hon. Friend is distinguished for many things, and the vigorous way in which he fought for his constituents over the Canvey Island problem as he saw them and achieved substantial improvements over many years are a lesson for all of us.

Mrs. Gorman: The Leader of the House has brought an interesting matter to our attention, but before we sink into a slough of self-congratulation it is worth telling the House that Mr. Gorbachev often speaks in the Praesidium for eight hours while in Cuba speeches often go on for eight days non-stop. We have many targets yet to reach.

Mr. Wakeham: If my hon. Friend is recommending speeches of five hours or eight hours, good luck to her. I am not in favour of that, but when a Member makes a speech of some significance it is right not to be churlish.
I have one other important point to make about procedure. It is quite wrong to say, as some hon. Members have said, that the procedure Committee suggested any changes in procedure about the moving of writs. While I recognise that the Procedure Committee report has not yet been put to the House for decision, these matters were around not very long ago and I can only assume that the Procedure Committee was satisfied with the existing procedures of the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: As a member of the Procedure Committee I can confirm everything that the Leader of the House says. It has been an interesting exercise and members of the Procedure Committee who have been in their places during this debate will have learnt some valuable lessons. The right hon. Gentleman touched on the Procedure Committee report. Will he take this opportunity to tell us when we are to have a debate on it?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot tell the House the date for a debate, but if there is a general desire to have one I shall arrange it. I hope that when we have it hon. Members will read the report before they take part. The report does not contain proposals as revoluntionary as some people seem to think. As I understand it, the report said in summary that two of the Fridays at present used for the remaining stages of private Bills should be lost and that two Mondays should be substituted. That is three extra hours for private Members. The report also said this was referred to in the debate—that private Members' business should not go on beyond 2.30 pm on a Friday.

Mr. Alton: The Leader of the House will recall that there is a precedent for what has happened today. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) decided to move the writ for the Brecon and Radnor by-election because there was a motion before the House allowing time for consideration of Mr. Enoch Powell's Bill to protect human embryos. Is it mere coincidence that, when there are motions before the House to protect life,

such writs are moved to take up time and to pre vent Parliament considering these life and death matters? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a travesty, it turns our proceedings into a circus and that many people outside this place will be bewildered by the way in which our proceedings are conducted?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I can totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, but if the Procedure committee could give the House some guidance as to whether it believes that this is the best way to proceed, that would be helpful to the House. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the issue of the writ did so in a speech that touched on a variety of aspects of the question before the House. A number of other hon. Members, in their interventions, made points that are often passed over in terms of discussion in the House when the issue of a writ is decided.
We also heard the more predictable intervention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). My response to his question is equally predictable—I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. Instead, I shall briefly set out the Government's position for the motion itself. As the House knows, although there are no fixed rules in these matters there are firm conventions and guidelines which I believe are generally accepted. It is perhaps ironic that the more the House becomes familiar with these conventions through their discussion during debates on the moving of writs, the more important it is to reassert them because the debate very often arises, as is the case today, as a result of a deviation from them.
The first set of conventions relates to the timing of the motion for a writ. These were set out in a letter from Mr. Speaker Lloyd to the then Prime Minister on 26 November 1973 following the Speaker's Conference on electoral law. The main conclusion was that the motion for a writ for a by-election should normally be moved within three months of a vacancy arising. The reason for this recommendation is clearly that no constituency should be unrepresented for an undue length of time. In the present case, of course, the vacancy arose less than one month ago when Sir Leon Brittan accepted the office of steward or bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House agree that the reason for that Speaker's Conference in 1973 was the undue delay in calling by-elections on some occasions? Does he not think it time for the matter to be discussed at another Speaker's Conference? There is a difference between the holding of a by-election as a result of a person's intention to resign and the holding of a by-election as a result of a death. Would it not be much more appropriate to have a shorter period between a person announcing his intention to resign and the holding of a by-election?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not wish to make a snap judgment about whether these matters should be reconsidered. If there were a general desire to do so, they should be reconsidered, but the implication that a Member who has indicated his intention to resign or not to stand at the next election could not and does not discharge fully his duties to his constituents until the time he leaves the House is not an assertion that the hon. Gentleman would wish co push too far.

Mr. Bennett: I am not pushing that point. I am suggesting that the political parties could arrange for a by-election to take place quickly after a resignation when they know that it is about to happen. A three-month delay is unreasonable because the procedure can be arranged to ensure quicker continuity.

Mr. Wakeham: The convention is not that there shall be a three-month delay, but that the maximum period shall be three months. In some circumstances, it may be desirable and possible to move more quickly. We intend to abide by the first convention and to move the issue of the writ before the three months have elapsed. We are keen that the voters of Richmond, Yorks should speedily have the opportunity to return a Conservative Member of Parliament, as they have done in every general election since 1918. We have an excellent candidate and we look forward to a good campaign.
It is certainly our intention to abide by the second convention, which states that such motions should be moved by the party whose hon. Member formerly occupied the seat and that it should have priority choosing the date of the by-election. In practice, the motion for the issue of the writ is usually moved by the Chief Whip of the party concerned. We intend to abide by that second convention although the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeks to disregard it.
Although there is widespread respect in the House for the judgment and knowledge of the hon. Member for Bolsover in relation to matters of procedure, in this instance I should prefer to rely on the judgment of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.
As the House will recognise, if we simply vote against the motion moved by the hon. Member for Bolsover the House will have resolved not to issue the by-election writ and the electors of Richmond, Yorks will continue to be unrepresented. I therefore beg to move, That the Question be not now put.

Mr. Alton: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not put the Question yet. The question is, That the Question be not now put.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot accept a closure motion at the beginning of the motion that I have just put. I call Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson: I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the House that the Question be not now put.
This morning we heard a tour de force from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in moving the writ for the Richmond, Yorks by-election. Those of us who were privileged to be present in the Chamber will be aware that he made skilled use of the procedures of the House, but relied even more on the singularity of his own wit in a way which everyone who heard him will remember for a long time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover raised a number of significant issues for the House to consider. He did us a service, although he did not talk very much about the circumstances of the departure of the former right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, Sir Leon Brittan, or the circumstances in which the election will take place. In summary, we could say that Sir Leon Brittan's

relationship with his constituency involved him being parachuted in and helicoptered out. However, we do not want to talk about that at any great length.
I want to consider some of the very important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Dalyell: Did my hon. Friend notice the Parliamentary invention of the Leader of the House? The Leader of the House said that we must not discuss Sir Leon Brittan because that would be out of order. He then proceeded to give his views. I asked as politely as I could what authority was used and I was told that the Leader of the House did not know. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Leader of the House used an invention of convenience which we often see used to the disadvantage of Back Benchers when a Minister goes to the Dispatch Box and off the top of his head, for the convenience of the moment, invents an authority which simply does not exist?

Mr. Dobson: I am not aware of anything in "Erskine May" or from anything else that I have read or heard which suggests that in moving a writ, right hon. and hon. Members may not say things about the departing Member no matter whether that Member may have died or resigned. The Leader of the House seemed to invent a wonderful compromise precedent. He said that we could not discuss anything about Sir Leon Brittan, but he would like to say a few nice words about him. It is apparently a precedent with a ratchet—everything that is good can be said, and nothing that is bad is to be heard. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will seek to remedy the imbalance that has already crept into the debate.
One of the major points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was that the rules state that, when a Member accepts a disqualifying office, he will in effect be disqualified from membership of the House. Unless I have been supplied by the Library with an outdated version of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 as amended, or I cannot read it properly, membership of the European Commission does not of itself appear to be a disqualifying office. Under our law, there was no obligation for Sir Leon Brittan to resign, either when he accepted the post of European Commissioner, which was clearly in July of last year, or when he took it up, which was on 1 January of this year.
We seem to be in a rather remarkable situation. It appears that we are not bound by our own domestic law but by European Community law on the matter, because European Commissioners must swear an oath of loyalty to the European Commission and all its works. Moreover, they forswear any loyalty to the country from which they come. Clearly, that would be inappropriate for a Member of this House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the matter is as the hon. Gentleman interprets it, will he explain how a Privy Councillor may take such an oath?

Mr. Dobson: As is sometimes the case, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has raised a question to which I have no answer. Perhaps he should address it to those Privy Councillors who take up such positions or those Privy Councillors who appoint them. It seems to be an oddity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has done us all a favour and a service by raising this important point.


If we are to disqualify 10 or a dozen closely printed lists of people from membership of the House, European Commissioners, who forswear any loyalty to this country to take up their office, should be on the list. I do not think that they are covered by the exclusion which refers to any member of the Foreign Compensation Commission, which is a disqualified office. Many Opposition Members consider that we have still not received sufficient foreign compensation for our membership of the EEC.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like to pursue the matter relating to the Privy Council. It is rather interesting that Roy Jenkins went to the Commission. When he returned to the House, he kept his title, and he certainly kept his privileges. It was suggested that he wanted also to keep a particular seat. That is pushing it a bit too far.

Mr. Dobson: To some of us, there certainly seemed to be a touch of having his cake and eating it or, as it turned out, later, his own cake and eating it, when "Jock" Jenkins was returned for the seat of Glasgow, Hillhead. He then came back and claimed all the privileges of a Privy Councillor. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised an important point.
The other point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover raised, to which we clearly need to pay some attention, is the distinction between the two sets of circumstances which disqualify people from membership of the House. The disqualifying offices relate to someone who is not a Member and prevent him becoming a Member, but the disqualifying offices also disqualify people who are Members if they take up one of the disqualifying offices once they have become a Member. From the procedures followed in this case it appears that, strictly speaking, even then they are not disqualified immediately from membership of the House, but are expected to take up one of the mythical posts of steward or bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or steward or bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, which is what has happened in this case.
The main reason why my hon. Friend moved the motion in favour of issuing the writ was that the House could consider these important matters. Broadly speaking, that purpose has been served. But it would not serve the House or the electors of Richmond for us to proceed any further because, as most hon. Members will be aware, if the motion were passed today, the immediate consequence would be a by-election which would not have been called at the time most convenient to the party whose member previously represented the seat—in this case the Tory party. Given the weather and geography it may not be a reasonable time for the electors to be expected to get around.
1 know that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is no longer present. For some obscure reason he has been insisting that the Pennines are not involved in this. He must think that the constituency is truncated and runs from near his constituency to the town of Richmond, but does not cover Wensleydale and Swaledale into the high Pennines, as it does. If the nearest local Tory Member is unaware of the geography of the constituency, it shows what close attention the Tory party is paying to the interests of the farmers in the dales.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am disappointed with what my hon. Friend is saying. We should move as speedily as possible to ensure that the people of Richmond, Yorks and those

of Pontypridd—my hon. Friend knows that I am silting waiting to move the writ for Pontypridd—are represented in this place as fast as possible. I am surprised that he wants to deprive the people of Richmond, Yorks, of that right.

Mr. Dobson: With due deference to my hon. Friend, most hon. Members agree that the sooner the by-election, the better. But the convention is that a by-election should be called within three months of the event which necessitated it, and it is the Government's stated intention to comply with that. We shall comply with that convention and we expect them to do so. To press them for swifter progress than that may be unfair, particularly in the geographical and climatic circumstances which can prevail in Swaledale and Wensleydale in February and March.
Several hon. Members have drawn attention to their shivering experiences at Catterick camp during the winter. They know how cold it can get there. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) pointed out that some times when the weather is not too inclement in Scotland it is still starkly cold in that part of the Pennines. Considerations in the interests of the voters are important.
All those consequences would result from the motion being passed today and what the Government might describe as a precipitate by-election. If the motion were not passed, the electors of Richmond, Yorks would not have the opportunity to cast their votes or to be represented by anyone until the next parliamentary Session. It would not be right for the electors of Richmond, Yorks to be deprived of representation that long.
In his brilliant speech on the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover raised a number of significant issues relating to the issuing of writs, the calling of by-elections and, especially, the relationship of the House to well-paid appointees in the European Community—a matter which the House had not previously addressed or properly clarified and to which we should pay some attention. We owe my hon. Friend a debt of gratitude for raising those issues and for providing a well-informed and entertaining speech to occupy a substantial part of the morning. All of that was done when his throat was not in the best of condition. Over the past few days he has had a bit of a cold, so his speech is all the more to his credit.
Although I was delighted to listen to my hon. Friend raise these major issues, I am not delighted at the prospect of his motion being put to the vote. That would be in breach of the general conventions on the calling of by-elections as agreed between the two parties—or, as my hon. Friend might see it, between the two Front Benches. It could result in a breach of that convention or in the by-election not being called in this parliamentary Session.

Mr. Bob Cryer: There is one aspect on which my hon. Friend has not elaborated. Will he bear in mind that, before departing for the Common Market, Leon Brittan claimed that he would represent the nation's interests in the Common Market? No doubt that would have been noted in some detail by the electorate in the Richmond area because he was the local Member of Parliament. We know that he has to make a comprehensive oath to the College of the Commission which precludes the representation of national interests in


that College. Therefore, surely some time is necessary for this information to be disseminated in the Richmond area before a by-election can take place.

Mr. Dobson: I look forward to participating in the dissemination of that information. Indeed, I have been to Richmond a couple of times since the appointment of Leon Brittan was first mentioned.
In deference to the convention introduced by the Leader of the House, I shall say nothing against our candidate, Mr. Frank Robson, in the Richmond, Yorks by-election, but I shall say a few things in his favour. He is a local man, a farmer, a man of great talent and wit and—this may be of some significance in relation to Catterick camp—a man with a startling war record. Many people are proud of what they did in the second world war, but our candidate has cause to be proud—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I will certainly not give way on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can keep his seat for a moment.
We think of the efforts and sacrifices made by people like Frank Robson, who did not run up Gold beach on D Day but was one of those paratroopers who parachuted behind the German lines to capture bridges so that they were not blown up to stop the allies establishing a beachhead on Normandy. Frank Robson is a man of great heroism, with an outstanding war record, which I am convinced will appeal to the people of Richmond, Yorks and, not least, to the soldiers at Catterick camp and those in the Air Force at RAF Leeming.
Having rightly paid tribute to our candidate, I shall now give way to other hon. Members. Once again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover on his motion, but I hope that he will not put it to the vote.

Sir Peter Emery: It is with considerable sadness that I rise to speak. In the realm of parliamentary procedure, the steps taken today make for an unhappy situation. It seems to me rather like an old and broken love affair—the rejected supplicant devoted, keen and eager, willing to do anything to further
the dedicated intent whilst the emotions against are relaxed and elated, knowing that whatever unusual or even unkind steps are taken the position will be secure.
First, let me make it clear—as there appears to be doubt in the media—that you, Mr. Speaker, had no alternative but to call the moving of the writ as today's first business. The Chair showed no favouritism; procedure made it clear that the first order of business had to be the calling of the writ, if it was to be moved.
People outside must also know that at no time today, irrespective of what had happened, would it have been in order to debate the Abortion Bill [Interruption.] Today's debate is concerned entirely with procedural matters concerning whether a writ should be moved, or concerning private Members' time.

Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. He is raising some important points, and those of us who are following the debate to the end want to hear the conclusions that he is

drawing from his own experience. I should be most grateful, as, I am sure, would other hon. Members, if conversations both inside and outside the confines of the Chamber would cease.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can hear, but admittedly I have two microphones.

Mr. Cryer: I am trying to concentrate on what the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is saying, because as Chairman of the Procedure Committee he has a good deal to say, and I want to encourage his hon. Friends to concentrate on his speech as well.

Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps if I did not speak so loudly people would be quieter.
As I was saying, at no time have matters other than procedural matters been before the House today. What makes members of the Procedure Committee sad is this. The Committee is constantly fighting Governments of both parties to try to obtain more time for private Members' motions and private Members' Bills, and it cannot benefit the House for private Members' time—whatever the motion, and whether or not one is in favour of it—to be frustrated.
Today we are seeking the establishment of another precedent that I do not think the House will welcome. I think that the use of dilatory motions should be strictly limited. Otherwise it seems that it will be good practice to use such motions to stop the debate of a Labour Member's motion, perhaps about unemployment or the Health Service, which Conservative Members do not like.

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Not for the moment. The hon. Gentleman has interrupted many times. Will he forgive me if I do not give way in the middle of my sentence?
I do not think that the position that I have described would please the Opposition, or that it is good parliamentary practice or procedure.

Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rights of all Back Benchers are at stake today. The public may come to regard the private Member as someone who is unable to introduce legislation and have it placed on the statute book. I refer to what occurred in this House one Friday, one year ago to the day, when, by a majority of 45, the Abortion (Amendment) Bill was given a Second Reading. Subsequently, that Bill was talked out. I refer also to Mr. Enoch Powell's Bill concerning human embryo experimentation, and to what is occurring today in respect of the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). Surely the Chairman of the Select Committee accepts that the matter should be urgently considered at its next meeting.

Sir Peter Emery: Frankly, I do not see the situation to the same extent as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). When, on the last occasion, petitions were used to frustrate our proceedings, the Select Committee recommended that we should do away with that device. That motion was on the Order Paper for weeks or months at the end of last Session. We have not been given an opportunity to debate and pass that recommendation. It may be that we ought to consider matters other than the moving of petitions, including the moving of writs. I have no doubt that the Select Committee will consider that point.
When a right hon. or hon. Member tries to make a wangle and to wriggle around the normal, accepted procedure, others will be clever enough to find ways of countering that attempt. I condemn both sides in this argument. I do not believe that either of them are right. The reason for today's debate on the writ is that someone tried to give preference to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), beyond that which Standing Orders allow.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my sentence. However intent the House may be on the passing of the writ—and, observing you moving to the front of your seat, Mr. Speaker, I know that I must keep in order—or however intent one may be on trying to ensure a debate on the private Member's motion, the House's normal Standing Orders and precedent must be observed. If they are not, we run into the kind of nonsense that confronts us today—

Mr. Leigh: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall consider that proposal when the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P Emery) concludes.

Mr. Tony Banks: Speaking as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I admire the way in which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) chairs it, and I enjoy working with him. Does he agree that we have learned one good thing today, which is the importance of that Committee? In this House, procedure is all-important. Right hon. and hon. Members should add their support to the pressure that both the hon. Gentleman and myself. and other members of the Select Committee exert on the Leader of the House for an early debate on its report.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman reiterates what his right hon. and hon. Friends and mine have been saying for months, if not years—that there is little point in having a Procedure Committee, in which many senior right hon. and hon. Members spend hours attempting to modernise slightly, but not revolutionise, the procedure of the House and drag it gently into the 20th century—let alone 1992—if, when the Committee has reported, the Government do not allow time to debate its recommendations. May I again make it absolutely clear—I know that I do not please certain hon. Friends—that there is no doubt in the mind of anybody who is trying to be unbiased about it, that the use of private Members' motions on procedural items is unusual and should not be encouraged. When it is used to try to avoid procedure—that the House has defined—it does nobody any good, and stimulates exactly what has happened today. All hon. Members should learn that lesson, if they learn nothing else from today's happenings.

Sir Bernard Braine: Let us forget the shadow boxing and concentrate on the real issue which is, surely, the continued use of procedures in this House to block the passage of Bills that command a majority. Will the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure at least ask his Committee to address itself to that?

Sir Peter Emery: With great trepidation I suggest that what my right hon. Friend the Father of the House said was not as accurate as I would like it to be. The majority

that such Bills take is not the majority of the House but a majority that is taken on a Division. [Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Members do not like it but they must consider the facts. Any hon. Member who introduces private Members' legislation must know that the chance of getting it through is next to nothing unless it commands the majority of both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill knows that unless there is major agreement on both sides of the House, the chances of success are negligible and it has always been so. If certain of the legislation of the previous Parliament had been agreed by some opponents in a modified form 1 believe it would have been passed. If the hon. Gentleman does not meet the criticism he must expect to be defeated.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend talks about hon. Members successfully introducing private Members' legislation. Does he not recall that a previous Labour Government allowed special time for the Abortion Act 1967 to be passed? Our Government are not giving similar time to enable Back Benchers to have a vote of the House.

Sir Peter Emery: Rather than pursuing her arguments—

Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been reluctant to intervene on issues that are not before the House but I must draw attention to the fact that several interventions—by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and others, in particular the latest one from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—were not related to the issue before us. They were criticisms of the Government's attitude on Government time and various other matters unrelated to the business before us. If they are to be allowed, the Opposition should be allowed to retaliate

Mr. Speaker: The interventions occurred during the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was speaking as Chairman of the Procedure Committee and they were taking up points that he had made.

Sir Peter Emery: What I would always suggest, whether on the moving of writs or otherwise, is that, if hon. Members cannot get their way they should persuade the Government to do something to support them. When the Warnock legislation comes through, I hope that that will be an opportunity to do what is wanted by a number of rny hon. Friends—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. He has intervened many times.

Mr. Bennett: No, I have not.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend has made many interventions today.

Mr. Bennett: Order On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: That may be a point of frustration, but. I doubt whether it is a point of order.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend has not intervened during my speech, but he has intervened many times today.

Mr. Flannery: He is a congenital intervener.

Sir Peter Emery: I must defend my hon. Friend. There is nothing congenital about him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Carry on.

Sir Peter Emery: Nobody can take credit for today's procedures. I am sorry that the Government did not make it clear—then we would not necessarily have had to have the writ—that they would take head-on the private Members' motions which were trying to extend a benefit for a private Member in a particular case. If that had been done, I believe that none of this would have happened and we would have had a full debate on the motion. I warn the Government that, unless they take it head-on some time, we will have this recurring time and time again. That must be a nonsense in the overall concept of procedure.
I and my Procedure Committee wish to defend the rights of the six Members who came at the top of the ballot to try to get their legislation through. We wish to defend the rights of those who have private Members' motions to have those motions debated and decisions taken on them. If we can achieve that from today's fiasco, something good will have come out of it. I only hope that we can do it quickly and we do not have more illustrations of nonsense in this House before we get some sense.

Mr. Leigh: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not take a point of order. I shall take the closure motion. I ask the House to listen carefully to the Question. The Question is, That the Question, That the Question be not now put, be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Tony Banks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in possession of a new writ for the constituency of Pontypridd. As it does not look as though I will have the opportunity of moving this writ, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I will be able to move this writ at another time. Is the period during which I can present it to the House closed or can I come in with it some time during next week, without notice, and move it?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot do that. That writ was issued for today.

The House having divided: Ayes 207, Noes 17.

Division No. 41]
[2.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alton, David
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amos, Alan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brazier, Julian


Armstrong, Hilary
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Barron, Kevin
Burns, Simon


Beith, A. J.
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butler, Chris


Bermingham, Gerald
Callaghan, Jim


Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis


Blair, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cash, William


Boateng, Paul
Chapman, Sydney


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)





Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clay, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clelland, David
Lightbown, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Litherland, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Couchman, James
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
McCrea, Rev William


Dalyell, Tam
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Darling, Alistair
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maclean, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Day, Stephen
Major, Rt Hon John


Devlin, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Dixon, Don
Mans, Keith


Dobson, Frank
Maples, John


Doran, Frank
Marlow, Tony


Dorrell, Stephen
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Meacher, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain


Eastham, Ken
Moate, Roger


Emery, Sir Peter
Moore, Rt Hon John


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Fearn, Ronald
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Paisley, Rev Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Forman, Nigel
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Foster, Derek
Pawsey, James


Fox, Sir Marcus
Pike, Peter L.


Freeman, Roger
Primarolo, Dawn


French, Douglas
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Maria
Redmond, Martin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Reid, Dr John


George, Bruce
Rhodes James, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Richardson, Jo


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ruddock, Joan


Gordon, Mildred
Ryder, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gould, Bryan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shelton, Sir William


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
(Streatham)


Ground, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hanley, Jeremy
Short, Clare


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Sims, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Haselhurst, Alan
Speed, Keith


Hayes, Jerry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Stanbrook, Ivor


Haynes, Frank
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Heffer, Eric S.
Steinberg, Gerry


Henderson, Doug
Stern, Michael


Hinchliffe, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hind, Kenneth
Sumberg, David


Holland, Stuart
Summerson, Hugo


Holt, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thorne, Neil


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thurnham, Peter


Irving, Charles
Tracey, Richard


Jack, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Janman, Tim
Turner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Jessel, Toby
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Wall, Pat


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Waller, Gary


Lawrence, Ivan
Walley, Joan






Wareing, Robert N.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Winnick, David


Wheeler, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Whitney, Ray
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Edward Leigh.




NOES


N Allen, Graham
OES Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Nellist, Dave


Bradley, Keith
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Snape, Peter


Fraser, John



Livingstone, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Madden, Max
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly,That the Question be not now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 23.

Division No. 42]
[2.25 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Amess, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Amos, Alan
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Anderson, Donald
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arbuthnot, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Barron, Kevin
Ground, Patrick


Bendall, Vivian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Benyon, W.
Hanley, Jeremy


Bidwell, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boateng, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Hayes, Jerry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Haynes, Frank


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hind, Kenneth


Brazier, Julian
Holt, Richard


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Butler, Chris
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Canavan, Dennis
Irving, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Janman, Tim


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Janner, Greville


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clay, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cox, Tom
Lightbown, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lilley, Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Devlin, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Frank
McCrea, Rev William


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maclean, David


Durant, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Maples, John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Meacher, Michael


Fraser, John
Mills, Iain


Freeman, Roger
Moate, Roger


French, Douglas
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon





Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Steinberg, Gerry


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stern, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Summerson, Hugo


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Richardson, Jo
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thorne, Neil


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Ruddock, Joan
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wall, Pat


Sedgemore, Brian
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shelton, Sir William
Whitney, Ray


(Streatham)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winnick, David


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speed, Keith



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Loyden, Eddie


Allen, Graham
Madden, Max


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Nellist, Dave


Beith, A. J.
Parry, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Snape, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fearn, Ronald
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gordon, Mildred



Heffer, Eric S.
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett


Livingstone, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am on my feet and I shall take the Business of the House motion first.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 23rd January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure), Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Rifkind or of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Housing (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall, at the expiration of that period, put successively the Question already proposed from the Chair and the Question on the remaining Motion which may then be made.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take Miss Widdecombe first.

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I consider that the proceedings in the Chamber today whereby I, in whose name the main motion of the day stood, have not been allowed to speak at all, have brought Parliament and the democratic workings of this place into


disrepute. I have only one thing to say as a message to all those who have held up this motion today—we shall be back, and back, and back.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with all the points of order at once.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Leader of the House reflect on whether he can say anything by way of a brief statement today or later about how the House can be enabled to arrive at a decision on matters that have been before it for many hours, without private Members' business being disrupted?

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remarks that have been bandied about by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in respect of our proceedings will you confirm that you and your Deputies have conducted the proceedings entirely within the framework of the Standing Orders of the House and that there has been no parliamentary mugging or filibustering? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was never once called to order throughout his speech. I should be grateful if you would confirm that Parliament has been conducted entirely properly today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Allow me to deal with this point now. I was here for the beginning of the debate and, as the House knows, for the last hour. While I was in the Chair—and, I am sure, while my Deputies were in the Chair—the debate proceeded in order. When occasionally that was not so, the hon. Members concerned were called to order.
I regret that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was unable to put her motion today, as it was first on the Order Paper, but it was a procedural motion. I strongly endorse what the Chairman of the Procedure Committee has said and hope that we shall not go through this kind of thing again.

Sir Bernard Braine: What has emerged today is not that anything was out of order; the Chair would not have permitted that in any case. What was said was perfectly permissible and had to be listened to. However, it is clear from today's experience, and all that has gone before, that procedures which are firmly rooted in the 19th century are totally incapable of permitting Bills that have passed through several stages in the House with a substantial majority to make any further progress. There is something so wrong in that that we can expect a considerable public backlash.
Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of our liberties and I, as Father of the House, can say—not necessarily better than anyone else, but because it is based on many years of experience—that the reputation of Parliament is now seriously at stake. Mr. Speaker, I hope that somehow or other you will be able with your advisors, the Government and Opposition Leaders, to ensure that the Procedure Committee takes action. We should take note of that here and now before greater harm is done to the reputation of the House.

Mr. Speaker: It is for the Leader of the House, who has a very influential and respected position, to put his proposals to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it will consider them and I hope that it will.

Mr. Alton: When the Procedure Committee reflects on what has happened today I hope that it will also consider that 20 years ago when the original legislation to create an Abortion Act was passed in the House, 25 hours of Government time were provided. Therefore, this legislation is about procedure—it is not truly private Member's legislation—and it is becoming virtually unamendable. For that reason, people outside this place might say that the procedures were adhered to today, but they could be forgiven for thinking, if they entered our Strangers Gallery, that they had attended some kind of west end farce.

Mr. Brazier: As one of the youngest hon. Members of the House may I state, following my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir. B. Braine), who is the Father of the House, that whether the procedures are adhered to or not, or amended, nearly 20 attempts have been made to put an Abortion Bill through the House and so far as the man in the street is concerned [HON. MEMBERS: "Man?"] each one has fallen not on a vote—but on wrangling of one form or another. The Government must consider bringing forward a measure on a free vote so that the matter can be decided once and for all.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting on to the merits of the Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), which is not due to have its Second Reading, if it is reached, until Friday 3 March. It is very important for people outside to appreciate what has happened today and that the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone was a procedural motion and not about the merits of her Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the time for the Adjournment. I will call Mrs. Wise.

Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm not only that what has happened today is in order, but that most private Members do not get an opportunity to bring forward a Bill? No particular priority should be attached to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) who has tried to do so through a procedural wrangle as it was described today. It ill-becomes one side of an argument to claim moral rectitude and to claim to represent the whole of the population on this topic when Second Reading would have been defeated if the vote had been held among women Members only, who voted 26 to 11 against it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now getting on to the merits. I think that we have disposed of this matter. We have had a long time on it. I will hear Mr. Madden on another matter.

Mr. Madden: Just over two hours ago, Mr. Viraj Mendis was deported from this country to Sri Lanka to a most uncertain destiny. It must be bad for the reputation of Parliament that that fact was not reported to the House


before midday today. Nor have Ministers come to this place to explain their actions or decisions, still less to account for or justify them.
Even at this late stage, will the Leader of the House make a statement about the Government's actions in relation to Mr. Mendis? If on Monday the Government have not seen fit to make a statement to the House, in those circumstances would you consider granting a private notice question on the Mendis case and not apply the time limit on matters for consideration for a private notice question because clearly the matter has arisen today? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, will you consider a private notice question if the Government do not make a statement on the Mendis case on Monday, so that the House can call Ministers to account for their activities, to explain why they did not allow proper negotiations to find Mr. Mendis a refuge, and to deal with the questions that many hon. Members wish to put to the Executive about this deplorable case?

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Corbyn: It is on the same matter, Mr. Speaker.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on this matter. It is important that a Minister should come to the House, or at least understand the feelings of the House about the disgraceful actions that happened today. An innocent man has been thrown out of this country to an uncertain future. At this very moment, he is on a plane bound for Sri Lanka in the company of a priest. It is incumbent on the British Government, who have thrown him out of the country, to do their best to ensure his safety in Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is right that, in addition to hearing from a Home Office Minister on Monday, we should hear from a Foreign Office Minister about what actions have been taken by the British high

commission in Colombo to ensure that he is in a haven until negotiations on his asylum in another European country are completed. As the Home Office well knew at the penultimate moment this morning, such negotiations were going on with some hope that a more liberal-minded European Government would be prepared to grant him the safety and asylum that have been so callously refused by the British Government.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are approached by the leaders of the Opposition to change their Supply day next week for a debate on this subject, under pressure from Labour Back Benchers, will you concede that request? They are silent on the matter. We are hearing humbug from the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what has been said has been heard by the Leader of the House. It is not for me to decide whether a statement is made. As to a private notice question, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) knows that I would not pronounce on that, certainly not some days in advance of it. Of course, the Opposition's debate on Tuesday could be changed up until the rising of the House on Monday.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the House whether, if matters today did not proceed as on the Order Paper, the Government would give time to consider them further. As the proceedings on the Order Paper did not take place, I ask the Leader of the House through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the legislation stemming from the Warnock report will have an item on abortion, with a conscience clause. The Government have announced that there will be a conscience clause in the abortion legislation.

Mr. Speaker: That would be a very good question to ask the Leader of the House next Thursday at business questions.

Plessey plc

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Neil Thorne: Last Easter, my hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued an important blue paper on mergers policy. He followed it with a speech at the stock exchange conference at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on Thursday, 22 October last year.
Two and a half years ago, the Office of Fair Trading recommended that the hostile bid by the General Electric Company for Plessey should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That advice was accepted by the then Secretary of State, who ultimately accepted the commission's recommendation that the proposal should not proceed. It concerns me that, two and half years later, another hostile bid can be mounted by essentially the same company.
As delighted as I am that it has also been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I am unhappy, not only at the wastage of management effort of between four and six months infighting the bid instead of going out to win orders, concentrating on ways of improving productivity and becoming more efficient to cope with international competition and preserving jobs, but because the Plessey company cannot dispose of, acquire, or, perhaps most important, enter into joint ventures exceeding 10 per cent. of its assets without referring the matter to its shareholders. It is no wonder that the company, faced with this troublesome adversary, should seek to mount a counter-bid for the predator to get it off its back once and for all.
Following a previous bid the two companies were recommended to co-operate in telecommunications, and a joint venture company, GEC and Plessey Telecommunications plc was created and is working effectively. One of Plessey's great strengths is its ability to co-operate with other countries and it has been doing that since it was founded in a shed in my constituency in 1919. Throughout its history it has been building important bits to go into the products of others, and joint ventures have been a speciality throughout its life.
GEC was in its heyday in the 1960s and 1970s when British industry was lazy and overmanned. It was able to rescue some companies in difficulties by cutting their work force and selling surplus assets, but today we are in a different market. That dated theory involves preying on others, not to improve those companies' performance but to improve itself and survive. GEC looks for companies with a good research and development record, which has been made as an investment in the future, and then uses some of its own vast liquid assets to take over the benefits yet to be harvested and proceeds to strip out everything worth having while running down customers and the research and development investment.
Having failed once in its aim, it now returns under the cover of the Euro-fog to try again. This time it has been joined by another large company in a similar condition. I say Euro-fog because there is nothing to be gained post-1992 by this bid which is not available before. After 1992 it will be possible for both Siemens and Plessey to compete in other countries without having to form an

alliance with a local company. The only change is in relation to defence matters, as these are excluded from the 1992 arrangements for completely free competition.
Siemens has strong telecommunications in West Germany. Plessey is a strong company in this country and throughout the world. Siemens has nothing to offer to improve on the previous bid, but has a lot to take away. For example, in radar, which is an important field for future collaboration, the Plessey company has a turnover of more than £100 million a year and GEC a turnover approaching £150 million, whereas Siemens has a turnover of only £25 million.
The sharing of management in joint endeavours would be a nightmare because Plessey has engaged in several joint ventures with countries in Europe and North America. If the GEC-Siemens proposal were to take effect, their proposal to divide management 51:49 would create further difficulties in these management deals. It is already difficult to negotiate with other companies and if an additional breakdown were superimposed on that, it would be an even greater impediment.
We should not forget that we have noticed in our relationship with North America that it is concerned that Siemens has connections not only with East Germany but with the Soviet Union. That must worry American Congressmen and Senators, who carefully watch the companies doing defence work for them to ensure that their hard-earned secrets, which they are either sharing or paying for through research and development, are not passed to countries behind the Iron Curtain for nothing.
One of the most important matters with which we must be concerned is employment. Plessey has nearly 15,000 employees in this country. If there were a takeover by GEC-Siemens, we could confidently expect that figure to fall to about 10,000. Five thousand high-tech jobs would be lost. GEC has a poor reputation in high-tech and we would not want chairman-management control added to the difficulties.
The Ministry of Defence requirements have been completely met. The Department requires pan-service collaboration. From its inception, Plessey has been good at that. The process provides the ingredients that others need. Plessey has carried out research and development so that it has a separate base on which to formulate this kind of enterprise. In doing so, Plessey can make a unique contribution to keeping British industry in the forefront of technology. Reserving a centre of excellence as a base in the United Kingdom is vital to our future, especially in defence. We must ensure that we preserve the leading United Kingdom semi-conductor manufacturer under United Kingdom management control. We can do that only if Plessey remains an independent company.
One of the most worrying aspects is GEC's reputation. A noble Lord told me earlier in the week that he had been a member of a company that had been taken over by GEC some time ago. The experiences of the actions of senior and middle management were disastrous. The ethos was to strip out anything worth having, to reduce employment as far as possible and to sell off assets to build up liquid resources which could be used to prey on yet another company. That could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be to the advantage of the British taxpayer. Such actions do not lead automatically to a keener price mechanism and certainly do not lead to a more stable and secure defence industry.
It is bad enough when this kind of attack is mounted on a company. If a company has to devote its entire managment resources for so long to fight off another bid so soon, we must consider whether there should be a limit on the frequency with which bids can be redrafted and resubmitted. If we do not do that, companies subject to predators are likely to suffer from decreased efficiency and ultimately to be taken over because they cannot maintain those high standards that they spent so long building up.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give some comfort by saying that this type of behaviour, which may have been well and good in the 1960s and 1970s, is inappropriate for the 1980s and beyond and that we can look for a more reasonable and rational approach.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has put his case with the succinctness and clarity that the House has come to expect of him, and has made some interesting points. Mergers and takeovers raise wide-ranging issues, and those relating to the GEC Siemens bid for Plessey are now being investigated thoroughly by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced his decision to refer the bid, in accordance with the advice of the Director-General of Fair Trading, on 12 January. The MMC has thus only just started its inquiries, and will report within three months. It is for the commission to decide whether the merger would be against the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
It would, as the House will understand, be entirely inappropriate to comment on the case while it is in the commission's hands, as any such comment could prejudice the conduct of its inquiries. If my hon. Friend—or, indeed, any other interested person or body—wishes to take any further issues specific to the case he should put his views to the MMC, which has a duty to take all relevant matters into account when preparing its report.
My hon. Friend referred to the plight of the companies that are subject to repeated bids, claiming that that would inhibit their efficient functioning. He asked why there was not a statutory limit governing the intervals between which they would be inviolate from a predator. In fact there is such a provision. Under the takeover code, if an offer has lapsed a re-bid may not be made within 12 months, and under the same code a bid lapses automatically on reference to the MMC. The 12-month rule does not apply to a bid that has lapsed on reference to the MMC and is subsequently cleared.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would admit that to remove the threat of a take-over for any longer period would not be in the interests of either the economy as a whole or indeed the company itself. The threat of a take-over often has a salutary effect on the incumbent management. Management should be placed under the discipline of having to demonstrate to its shareholders that it is running the company as efficiently as possible. That, if it did nothing else, would raise the value of the shares to a level that would probably deter a predator. Any Government action that places obstacles in the way of take-overs weakens that discipline.
I should also point out that the courts have already determined that this is a different bid from the earlier one in respect of which GEC gave certain undertakings. The

courts have ruled that the involvement of Siemens brings a new dimension to the position that was not foreseen either at the time of the MMC report or when the undertakings were being negotiated.
Let me now deal with the implications of the bid for the Government's mergers policy. In announcing his decision to refer the bid to the MMC my right hon. and noble Friend considered
that there are possible effects on competition, particularly in the areas of defence electronics and traffic control equipment, which deserve investigation by the Commission.
The reference of the bid to the MMC thus falls squarely within the usual policy of my right hon. and noble Friend on mergers: that the main criterion for deciding whether to refer a bid or merger should be the effect on competition in the United Kingdom. That policy was clearly stated in a blue paper entitled "Mergers Policy", issued by my Department in March 1988. It was reiterated in a speech, referred to by my hon. Friend, made by my right hon. and noble Friend to the stock exchange conference for industry last October.
I should stress that a decision to refer a bid is not a final judgment about the proposed merger. It means only that there are issues that merit further investigations. It certainly does not follow that the bid will be blocked; that can be done only if the MMC finds it to be against the public interest. Of 47 references to the commission since 1983, only 11 have been blocked. If the MMC finds that a merger is not against the public interest, my right hon. and noble Friend has no powers to take any action.
The assumption underlying the Government's mergers policy is that the market should be allowed to get on with it. Government interference is justified only when there is a clear expectation that the outcome will not be in the best interests of the economy as a whole—and in the vast majority of cases, such adverse effects are manifested by a potential effect on competition in the United Kingdom. Underlying that is the judgment that, in general, market forces will be more likely to be right than the deliberations of politicians or bureaucrats.
While competition is the main consideration in deciding whether to refer a bid or merger to the MMC, My right hon. and noble Friend retains the power to make a reference on other public interest grounds. "Other public interest grounds" are often claimed to be the effect of a merger on employment or on research and development. However, it is for the parties themselves to take a view on those matters.
I appreciate that the uncertainty associated with a merger may be disconcerting for the work force concerned, particularly that of the target factory. My hon. Friend has already referred to his own constituents who are employed by Plessey, and it is true that the instinctive reaction of companies at the receiving end—particularly of unwelcome bids—is to resist mergers. However, it should not go unnoticed that that reaction is fostered, and often felt more strongly by, the management, whose own conduct may, for various reasons, have made the company vulnerable—more so than by the work force, which might in certain circumstances, and possibly in the majority of circumstances, benefit from a merger.
A merger may or may not lead to effects on local employment. They may be positive or negative, and similar changes could take place even if the incumbent management stays put. Patterns of production are subject to constant change, whether or not they are the result of a


merger, and to seize on the possible adverse effects of a business decision as a reason for preventing them, is turning intervention into outright interference in business management—which is not an area, I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, where politicians have a record of excellence.
The GEC-Siemens bid has been seen by some commentators as an example of the industrial restructuring necessary in the run-up to 1992. Critics argue that greater weight should be given to the prospective benefits of a merger in deciding whether to make a reference. It is suggested that a reduction in competition in the United Kingdom should be accepted in order to enable large United Kingdom groups to be formed, to compete more effectively in world markets.
Arguments about the prospective gains to efficiency and to international competitiveness are considered in appropriate cases, but it would be wrong for the Government and competition authorities to take on trust the claims often made by the proposers of a merger about the benefits that will follow it. When a merger appears to pose a significant threat to competition in the United Kingdom market, the Government believe there should be a strong presumption in favour of a reference to the MMC. It is then for the commission to conduct a full examination.
The European Commission is also examining the bid. On 12 January, it announced that it considered relevant

the competition provisions of article 85 of the treaty of Rome. Article 85 deals with agreements between firms which may restrict or distort competition in the EC. The joint purchase and subsequent joint operation by competitors of Plessey activities might be said to diminish competition—but the Commission has yet to take a view. Article 85(3) provides that agreements or decisions between enterprises which improve the production or distribution of goods, or promote technical or economic progress, be exempted, if the consumer secures a fair share of the resulting benefit. It is for the European Commission to determine whether such a derogation is appropriate. It requires more information from the companies concerned to determine that. The commission has said it will conclude its inquiries as soon as possible. Naturally there has been contact between my Department and the EC Commission and, as in previous cases, that will continue.
The MMC is looking at the GEC-Siemens bid for Plessey, and will submit its report to my right hon. and noble Friend in mid-April. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has ample time to put his point to the commission. The reference of this bid is fully in accordance with the Government's mergers policy, which has been clearly stated. That policy provides industry and commerce with a clear and predictable framework within which to conduct the merger and takeover activity that is such an important part of the operation of the market.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Three o'clock.